On 4/12/07, prdcomp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Recently, I did an experiment: I build lfs (using jhalfs) without > optmizations, and in a spare partition built it subsequently with (mainly) > the following flags: "-O2 -pipe -march=athlon-xp". Those are rather common > options, but the number of unexpected (and quite expected by now) libmudflap > failures raised from the traditional 6 to 320!
That doesn't seem right. Those are perfectly normal flags, except maybe -march. In fact, gcc by default uses -O2. Are you pretty confident that you built everything the same way? I've never heard of mudflap totally falling over like that, but there are issues with it timing out some tests. Do the errors say that it's timing out? > Actually, I think the real question is: is it worth trying to optimize a LFS > (initial) system? For BLFS, I tend to believe it is. For LFS itself, not that > sure. Some things certainly benefit from optimization. Anything that's doing a lot of data processing or doing math intensive operations are going to benefit from using your processor's full capabilities. Think of a video encoding library. In LFS, the most useful, but also the most dangerous, thing to optimize is glibc. _Everything_ on your system uses glibc. If you can optimize your C routines, everything benefits. But if it breaks, then you're screwed. Most of the other stuff in LFS are pretty basic utilities. Ncurses and zlib jump out as libraries that a lot of other packages link to. Optimizing gcc and binutils only helps the build time behavior and not the runtime behavior. Just shooting from the hip here. I've never gone crazy optimizing or done any kind of benchmarking. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
