David O'Brien wrote/schrieb (Saturday, March 18, 2000):
| On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 03:18:45AM +0100, Thomas Köllmann wrote:
| > | Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but can the pentium optimisations be
| > | used for AMD K6 processors?
| >
| > I did a `make world' yesterday with
| > CFLAGS
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> It's probably more of a "placebo effect", which makes you think your
> are getting a big boost in performance. I'll admit that I've never
> seen a whole order or magnitude increase in performance between -O and
> -mpentium-O3, or whatever - it probably gives you boosts here
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 03:18:45AM +0100, Thomas Köllmann wrote:
> > If it doesn't I'll probably try `-03 -pipe -march=pentium' come next
>
> What are people hoping to get by doing this? Are you actually doing a
> scientific performance evaluation between the various o
On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 03:18:45AM +0100, Thomas Köllmann wrote:
> | Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but can the pentium optimisations be used
> | for AMD K6 processors?
>
> I did a `make world' yesterday with
> CFLAGS= -O2 -pipe -march=pentium
> COPTFLAGS= -O2 -pip
Thomas Köllmann wrote:
> I wrote/schrieb (Saturday, March 18, 2000):
>
> | R Joseph Wright wrote/schrieb (Friday, March 17, 2000):
> |
> | | > In contrast, I've been using -Os -march=pentium during the last three
> | | > months for buildworld and the kernel. Never had problems whatsoever.
> | |
>
I wrote/schrieb (Saturday, March 18, 2000):
| R Joseph Wright wrote/schrieb (Friday, March 17, 2000):
|
| | > In contrast, I've been using -Os -march=pentium during the last three
| | > months for buildworld and the kernel. Never had problems whatsoever.
| |
| | Perhaps this is a bit off topic,
R Joseph Wright wrote/schrieb (Friday, March 17, 2000):
| > In contrast, I've been using -Os -march=pentium during the last three
| > months for buildworld and the kernel. Never had problems whatsoever.
|
| Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but can the pentium optimisations be used
| for AMD K6 p
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
> Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> >
> > I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found that
> > squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on each attempt to
> > load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault disappeared. After some digging
>
>
> In contrast, I've been using -Os -march=pentium during the last three
> months for buildworld and the kernel. Never had problems whatsoever.
Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but can the pentium optimisations be used
for AMD K6 processors?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> > Well... where is "name" being set? That would help.
>
> It is not clear what do you mean, please explain.
"name" is the name of the variable that is passed as NULL when compiled
with -Os. In the code trace you posted, we do not see any reference to
this variable up to
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found that
> squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on each attempt to
> load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault disappeared. After some digging
> into the sources with gdb I found th
On 16 Mar, Doug Barton wrote:
> In the interests of providing another datapoint, I tried my old, boring
> P5 machine, and with -Os -march=pentium buildworld bombed trying to
> compile cc1plus in the build tools phase. Backing off to -O worked. The
> kernel was ok with -Os -march=pentium.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 10:09:37PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Donn Miller wrote:
> >
> > Doug Barton wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm... If I have a PII (Actually celeron 300A) or a PIII, which is
> > > better, 'pentium' or 'pentiumpro'? I would think the latter, but I've
> > > learned not to assum
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > Hmm... If I have a PII (Actually celeron 300A) or a PIII, which is
> > better, 'pentium' or 'pentiumpro'? I would think the latter, but I've
> > learned not to assume where gcc is concerned.
>
> I think that 'pentium' would result in code
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote:
> Wondering why one would use -mcpu and not -march. If the code runs only on
> Celerons, PII's, and PIII's why would one *not* use -march.
>
> I'm curious about (possible) breakages with -mcpu or -march compared to -Ox
> settings which seem to br
At 01:42 PM 3/16/00 +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What??? 'pentiumpro' code isn't going to be very optimized for a Pentium
> > (if it even runs at all).
>
>According to the gcc(1) man page, -mpentiumpro is synonymous to
>-mcpu=pentiumpro, which
-Original Message-
From: Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:57:27 -0600
Subject: Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4)
> In the last episode (Mar 15), David O'Brien said:
> > On W
David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What??? 'pentiumpro' code isn't going to be very optimized for a Pentium
> (if it even runs at all).
According to the gcc(1) man page, -mpentiumpro is synonymous to
-mcpu=pentiumpro, which only affects instruction scheduling but
not the actual instruct
Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm... If I have a PII (Actually celeron 300A) or a PIII, which is
> better, 'pentium' or 'pentiumpro'? I would think the latter, but I've
I have to admit that I kind of lost track of Intel's Pentium du
jour offerings after the PPro, but I think PII
>
> I think that 'pentium' would result in code that isn't as optimized as
> 'pentiumpro', but I've heard that 'pentium' has a lot less problems.
What??? 'pentiumpro' code isn't going to be very optimized for a Pentium
(if it even runs at all).
> I've heard that -mpentiumpro can be pretty bugg
Doug Barton wrote:
> Hmm... If I have a PII (Actually celeron 300A) or a PIII, which is
> better, 'pentium' or 'pentiumpro'? I would think the latter, but I've
> learned not to assume where gcc is concerned.
I think that 'pentium' would result in code that isn't as optimized as
'pentiump
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> Maxim Sobolev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found that
> > squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on each attempt to
> > load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault disappeared
Maxim Sobolev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found that
> squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on each attempt to
> load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault disappeared.
Which brings us back to the popular to
In the last episode (Mar 15), David O'Brien said:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:51:55AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
> > I get it with -O2 (-Os implies -O2, so it's probably the same
> > problem).
>
> Not quite. -0s ==> all the -O2 optimizations that do not increase
> code size. -Os can also perform
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:51:55AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
> I get it with -O2 (-Os implies -O2, so it's probably the same problem).
Not quite. -0s ==> all the -O2 optimizations that do not increase code
size. -Os can also perform other optimizations not part of -O2 that
decrease code size.
At 12:48 PM 3/15/00 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
>I've noticed various compile-time optimization bugs as well. For
>example, I tried building Qt with -mpentium -O3 -pipe, and somewhere
>during the build, I get "Internal compiler error." Falling back to
>the stock optimization levels of -O2 fixed t
Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Mar 15), Maxim Sobolev said:
> > I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found
> > that squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on
> > each attempt to load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault
> > disappeared.
Dan Nelson wrote:
>
> In the last episode (Mar 15), Maxim Sobolev said:
> > I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found
> > that squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on
> > each attempt to load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault
> > disappeared
In the last episode (Mar 15), Maxim Sobolev said:
> I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found
> that squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on
> each attempt to load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault
> disappeared. After some digging into the s
Hi,
I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found that
squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on each attempt to
load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault disappeared. After some digging
into the sources with gdb I found that fault came from derefere
30 matches
Mail list logo
