Re: [PERFORM] compiling 7.4.1 on Solaris 9

2004-03-11 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:07:28AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > At work, we have been doing a number of tests on 7.4. The > performance is such an improvement over 7.2 that the QA folks thought > there must be something wrong. So I suppose the defaults are ok. I know, I know, replying to mys

Re: [PERFORM] compiling 7.4.1 on Solaris 9

2004-03-10 Thread Jeff
On Mar 2, 2004, at 5:54 AM, teknokrat wrote: Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:46:23PM +, teknokrat wrote: I've read about the place. Would using -O3 be an improvement? In my experience, it's not only not an improvement, it sometimes breaks the code. That's on 8, though, not 9

Re: [PERFORM] compiling 7.4.1 on Solaris 9

2004-03-10 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:54:23AM +, teknokrat wrote: > thanks, i remember a thread about problems with flags passed to gcc on > solaris. I was wondering if there had been any resolution and if the > defaults for 7.4 are considered Ok. As near as I can tell, -O2 is used by default on Solari

Re: [PERFORM] compiling 7.4.1 on Solaris 9

2004-03-09 Thread teknokrat
Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:46:23PM +, teknokrat wrote: I've read about the place. Would using -O3 be an improvement? In my experience, it's not only not an improvement, it sometimes breaks the code. That's on 8, though, not 9. A thanks, i remember a thread about prob

Re: [PERFORM] compiling 7.4.1 on Solaris 9

2004-03-01 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:46:23PM +, teknokrat wrote: > I've read about the place. Would using -O3 be an improvement? In my experience, it's not only not an improvement, it sometimes breaks the code. That's on 8, though, not 9. A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] The plural of anecd