Interesting. Most of the machines I use have around 1G ram and 2 to 4 gbytes of swap, so -Os looks like it creates a real loss on systems with ram to spare (see http://wdk.dyndns.org/flags.png - pick -Os !), but gains when ram is short.
Some people are saying (no figures though) that -Os helps on a desktop system with responsiveness. -falign-functions=4 created a slight loss , = 8 or 16 a bit more, but =32 gained some (32 bit addressing?) The more I test, I am coming down on the side of using some basic flags for the system, compiling desktop stuff with -Os (if I can confirm it does work) and then specific apps with the best flags for performance. Examples here are zip/gzip/bzip, mysql, gimp : basicly things that run a lot and for a long time where long term speed is required. One point to make about running in X and console: running an application in an xterm, gnome-terminal, text console or frame-buffer console all produced different results when tested. So to be valid, you will need to do the tests in as close to the way you intend to use the program as possible. The golden rule is "test, test, and dont accept someone elses flags without testing"!!!! BillK On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 18:36, Robo Cernansky wrote: > This is results of simple CFLAGS test. Maybe it will be useful for someone so > I post it here. I was wonder if results for old processors will be same as for > the fast ones so I made this simple test. > You can compare this test with Javier Villavicencio's > (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/51881)). > > I was compiling gnuchess (http://www.gnu.org/software/chess/chess.html) with > various CFLAGS settings. For each compiled gnuchess I ran these commands: -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
