On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 10:13:05 +0200 Tom Hacohen
said:
i have no problems with the README suggestion optimizations you'd like to use.
making it a configure --enable-optimizations isn't any better than saying
'recommended optimizations: export CFLAGS="..."' with the first being more
obscure. as such
I generally agree with this claim, and it's true about many things, but
I also think we should include "recommended defaults" for people who are
unsure about what's good/wanted. If not in the configure so at least in
the README/INSTALL :)
Don't you think? This will mean more users will benefit fro
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:37:53 +0100 (CET) Vincent Torri
said:
belongs in CFLAGS/LDFLAGS of the people doing the compiling. (users/packagers)
>
> Hey,
>
> with newer gcc, we could optimize link with -flto (and
> also maybe -fwhole-program). Shouldn't we add those options if they are
> availabl
2010/11/29 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri :
> On Monday, November 29, 2010, Cedric BAIL wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Tom Hacohen
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 18:53 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
I'm all for it you know, but raster keeps opposing even simple
visib
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 09:03 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> It's acceptable, but I'd go with them by default, particularly those
> that help finding programming bugs such as visibility flags and -Wall
> -Wextra
Regarding -Wall and -Wextra I also like them as default (IIRC I sent an
email
On Monday, November 29, 2010, Cedric BAIL wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Tom Hacohen
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 18:53 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>> I'm all for it you know, but raster keeps opposing even simple
>>> visibility hidden flags
>>
>> I probably missed an
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Tom Hacohen
wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 18:53 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>> I'm all for it you know, but raster keeps opposing even simple
>> visibility hidden flags
>
> I probably missed an old discussion, but why don't we add a
> --super-optimize
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 18:53 -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> I'm all for it you know, but raster keeps opposing even simple
> visibility hidden flags
I probably missed an old discussion, but why don't we add a
--super-optimize configure flag that just turns all the optimizations
possible
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:53:42 -0200
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2010, Vincent Torri wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > with newer gcc, we could optimize link with -flto (and
> > also maybe -fwhole-program). Shouldn't we add those options if they are
> > available (i have al
On Sunday, November 28, 2010, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> with newer gcc, we could optimize link with -flto (and
> also maybe -fwhole-program). Shouldn't we add those options if they are
> available (i have already written m4 macro to add such flags) ?
I'm all for it you know, but raster ke
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:37, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> with newer gcc, we could optimize link with -flto (and
> also maybe -fwhole-program). Shouldn't we add those options if they are
> available (i have already written m4 macro to add such flags) ?
It's really longer to compile with th
Thanks.
As for my opinion: looks very cool, should probably use it.
--
Tom.
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 12:49 +0100, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity: what do they do?
>
> http://nickclifton.livejournal.com/4128.html
>
-
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Out of curiosity: what do they do?
http://nickclifton.livejournal.com/4128.html
--
Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500!
Tap into the largest in
Out of curiosity: what do they do?
--
Tom.
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 12:37 +0100, Vincent Torri wrote:
> Hey,
>
> with newer gcc, we could optimize link with -flto (and
> also maybe -fwhole-program). Shouldn't we add those options if they are
> available (i have already written m4 macro to add suc
14 matches
Mail list logo
