Victor Kirkebo wrote: > David.Comay at Sun.COM wrote: >>>> 1. Have you determined that -xO5 generates the best performing code >>>> on both >>>> SPARC and Intel. The fact that -xO5 is the highest optimization >>>> level doesn't >>>> always mean it generates the fastest, best performing code. >>>> Aggressive inlining >>>> can sometimes lead to cache thrashing, which ends up having the >>>> exact opposite >>>> effect from the one intended. >>> No, I don't think we have tested this really. But I'd like to keep it >>> for now and make a decision when we'd had time to test this. >> In addition to the issues that Stefan brought up, higher optimization >> levels can also lead to code generation bugs and may cause correctness >> issues. Unless you've verified from both a correctness and performance >> perspective that higher optimization levels actually work, you should >> stick with the default one. > Ok, I've removed -xO5 now.
I cannot think that this is necessary. Surely the code will have run through quality tests, meaning that any optimization problems should have surfaced by now. The code base is also fairly small, so inlining is not likely to cause severe cache thrashing problems. Obviously, compiler settings should not be changed without analyzing performance and quality impacts, but finding the optimal settings is probably best done at a later time. Roy > > -Victor >> dsc > > _______________________________________________ > sfwnv-discuss mailing list > sfwnv-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sfwnv-discuss
