Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

On 03-02-16 21:59, Khem Raj wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 12:51 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 22:17 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: -pipe does

Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 12:51 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: >> > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 22:17 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> >> -pipe does speed up build time so its an

Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

On 3 February 2016 at 20:51, Khem Raj wrote: > it does not create files for intermediate objects so if you have slow > media it can be significant > but if you have SSDs then it might be diminished. > That's the theory but in my experience with a modern file system on

Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 22:17 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > -pipe does speed up build time so its an optimization. How much does it really speed it up by? I seem to recall the effect was fairly negligible, but maybe I am remembering that wrong. p. -- ___

Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 22:17 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> -pipe does speed up build time so its an optimization. > > How much does it really speed it up by? I seem to recall the effect was > fairly negligible, but maybe I am

Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 12:51 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 22:17 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > >> -pipe does speed up build time so its an optimization. > > > > How much does it really speed it up by? I seem to

Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 12:59 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > in systems of this age it should be yet. Sorry, I didn't really understand that comment. For what it's worth, as a very quick and fairly unscientific comparison, I did "time make -j4" in a glibc tree and got: real1m38.812s user

Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

> On Feb 3, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 12:59 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> in systems of this age it should be yet. > > Sorry, I didn't really understand that comment. systems of today ( new systems ). read ‘yet' as 'yes' > > For what it's

Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 14:26 +0100, Pascal Bach wrote: > I'm not sure if the documentation is wrong or if the default set in > bitbake.conf is incorrect. > Maybe somebody can shed some light on this. FULL_OPTIMIZATION in bitbake.conf did use to match what the documentation says (or at least, was

Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

> On Feb 2, 2016, at 12:52 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 14:26 +0100, Pascal Bach wrote: >> I'm not sure if the documentation is wrong or if the default set in >> bitbake.conf is incorrect. >> Maybe somebody can shed some light on this. > >

Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

Am 02.02.2016 um 15:26 schrieb Mike Looijmans: > You'd have to check the GCC documentation to be sure, but I suspect that all > of "-fexpensive-optimizations -fomit-frame-pointer -frename-registers" are > already in effect at -O2 optimization level, so they're redundant. > -

Re: [OE-core] Default value for FULL_OPTIMIZATION

You'd have to check the GCC documentation to be sure, but I suspect that all of "-fexpensive-optimizations -fomit-frame-pointer -frename-registers" are already in effect at -O2 optimization level, so they're redundant. On 02-02-16 14:26, Pascal Bach wrote: Hi everybody I noticed an