-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Lange wrote: > Am Sonntag, 13. November 2005 13:47 schrieb Pascal Bleser: >> (...) >> because it may affect the behaviour of the >> application, because the developers don't test their software with such >> insane optimizations. >> And because it's not worth spending hours of building, testing, (proper) >> benchmarking and investigation on optimization flags when you barely win a >> few milliseconds on startup, if at all. >> >> (...) > Just for my interest... > > Do you have a example of "code/programm" that run without the LDFLAGS > "-Wl,-O1" and dont run with it?
No, as said, I don't spend time on that. But CFLAGS may affect the application and its runtime behaviour. I meant that for compiler optimization, as a whole. If -Wl,-O1 is an optional flag and must specifically be passed to the linker... and it that doesn't, never, ever affect the binaries that result from it.. why isn't it the default behaviour then ? cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDd2o5r3NMWliFcXcRAomDAJ9gmvsVfaHqIAKeNZlwACnATbDjYQCfYrKG wf7ebccXJOjsZ7bUNeGY4cE= =5oeR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
