Re: [gentoo-dev] Default -O CFLAG in make.conf
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:43:47PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 07:18, Tom Martin wrote: > > As a default for x86, wouldn't -O2 be more suitable? My personal > > viewpoint is that if you want to set -O3 on x86, go ahead. But if you > > do, you should know why you want to do it, and what affects it will > > have. Many beginners who haven't really got their heads around CFLAGS > > will possibly read somewhere that -O3 gives the most optimisation and be > > sold there and then. > > Hi, > -O2 _is_ the default. The commented examples in make.conf are just that > -- examples. > > Try leaving the make.conf as it was when distributed (with CFLAGS and > CXXFLAGS commented out), then run `emerge info | grep CFLAGS`. > > Donnie Most people uncomment and use the example. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Default -O CFLAG in make.conf
On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 07:18, Tom Martin wrote: > As a default for x86, wouldn't -O2 be more suitable? My personal > viewpoint is that if you want to set -O3 on x86, go ahead. But if you > do, you should know why you want to do it, and what affects it will > have. Many beginners who haven't really got their heads around CFLAGS > will possibly read somewhere that -O3 gives the most optimisation and be > sold there and then. Hi, -O2 _is_ the default. The commented examples in make.conf are just that -- examples. Try leaving the make.conf as it was when distributed (with CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS commented out), then run `emerge info | grep CFLAGS`. Donnie signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Default -O CFLAG in make.conf
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 12:18:56PM +, Tom Martin wrote: > Hello all, > > Without wanting to become flame bait at all.. I'd just like to know why > -O3 is the default (commented) -O in make.conf, even for x86 stage > tarballs (I don't really know about the stageballs on other > architectures). Although the usefulness / harm of this flag has been > discussed to death, on the vast majority of x86 /desktop/ machines I > don't really think this flag is that suitable, and I know many agree. > > The reason I ask is because many people who didn't really change the > default flags beyond setting -march have come on #gentoo or on the > forums unsatisfied with performance of Gentoo, and there are also > several packages that still won't compile with -O3. > > As a default for x86, wouldn't -O2 be more suitable? My personal > viewpoint is that if you want to set -O3 on x86, go ahead. But if you > do, you should know why you want to do it, and what affects it will > have. Many beginners who haven't really got their heads around CFLAGS > will possibly read somewhere that -O3 gives the most optimisation and be > sold there and then. > I agree. Could you please file a bug about this if there isn't one already and post the bug number here? -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Default -O CFLAG in make.conf
On Sunday 25 January 2004 14:28, Alexander Gabert wrote: > hi > > when will gcc-3.4 enter portage? > Not before it is released. And it will be either masked or unavailable for some time afterwards as the stability must first be assured. Broken compilers can really break a system to the point where downgrading the compiler is not without pain. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Default -O CFLAG in make.conf
hi when will gcc-3.4 enter portage? bye, Alex On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 13:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote: . Especially as gcc-3.2.3 is still the stable compiler. > It has known code generation issues so should be avoided. > > Paul > > -- > Paul de Vrieze > Gentoo Developer > Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Default -O CFLAG in make.conf
On Sunday 25 January 2004 13:18, Tom Martin wrote: > Hello all, > > Without wanting to become flame bait at all.. I'd just like to know why > -O3 is the default (commented) -O in make.conf, even for x86 stage > tarballs (I don't really know about the stageballs on other > architectures). Although the usefulness / harm of this flag has been > discussed to death, on the vast majority of x86 /desktop/ machines I > don't really think this flag is that suitable, and I know many agree. > > The reason I ask is because many people who didn't really change the > default flags beyond setting -march have come on #gentoo or on the > forums unsatisfied with performance of Gentoo, and there are also > several packages that still won't compile with -O3. > > As a default for x86, wouldn't -O2 be more suitable? My personal > viewpoint is that if you want to set -O3 on x86, go ahead. But if you > do, you should know why you want to do it, and what affects it will > have. Many beginners who haven't really got their heads around CFLAGS > will possibly read somewhere that -O3 gives the most optimisation and be > sold there and then. I would agree with this. Especially as gcc-3.2.3 is still the stable compiler. It has known code generation issues so should be avoided. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgp0.pgp Description: signature
