On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 08:25:43PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > Gary Kline wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:19:49PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Danny Pansters wrote: > >> > > No problem. -funroll-loops might not buy you too much other than a few > less instructions overall but I'm not sure how intelligent gcc is at > unrolling loops. It seemed like there was a difference between > optimizations in the 4.x branch compared to the 3.4.x sub branch. They > made a lot of improvements in the 4.x branch though.. it's just that > some of those improvements broke code, so that's probably why FreeBSD > doesn't have gcc-4.x in the base system.
Until one of my hardware buddes can swap memory from an unsed Kayak into my "new" (koff-koff) one, I have to be careful about the added bytes that loop unrolling costs. It's ballpark 10% with the default gcc. I'm building the 4.x stuff now with no ++CFLAGS. The compiler guys know their stuff. If any good and surprising news happens, I'll post it. "Unix: get every last billionth-of-a-penny's worth out of your hardware." ah, life! gary > > Cheers :). > -Garrett > _______________________________________________ > email@example.com mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public Service Unix _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"