Mon, 3 Nov 2014 09:40:09 +0100, Peter.Bex wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:38:37AM +0100, Sven Hartrumpf wrote: >> Mon, 3 Nov 2014 09:04:27 +0100, Peter.Bex wrote: >> > How about restoring the optimization option to the defaults and seeing >> > what breaks? For me it was highly unexpected that CHICKEN was producing >> > completely unoptimized code, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, >> > so if this doesn't break on too many systems, it's a saner default. >> > If it's too aggressive, we could try -O2 instead or even -O1. >> >> Just my experience with a large application (chicken generates one C file >> of 700 KLOC) and gcc 4.8.N: >> Chicken built >> - with "-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=corei7": has been ok for 2 years >> or so >> - with "-Ofast -fomit-frame-pointer -march=corei7": caused errors (last >> checked >> in late 2013; I can retry if someone is interested) > > Cool, that's useful info! What is -Ofast? Is it -O3, or something higher? > If retrying isn't too much of a hassle, I'd be interested to know the results > with a recent GCC (and perhaps clang, too).
OK. I reran my tests with GCC 4.9.2. -Ofast works without any problems, but is only slightly faster (1-2 %) than -O2 for my binaries > Using -O2 by default would be a big improvement already, I think. Yes. Sven _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
