X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs- Mail-Copies-To: never To: beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl Subject: Re: Optimizations when compiling the compiler. References: <199809030016 DOT TAA12871 AT indy1 DOT indy DOT net> <19980903023909 DOT 54365 AT cerebro DOT laendle> X-Face: (:YAD AT JS'&Kz'M}n7eX7gEvPR6U1mJ-kt;asEc2qAv;h{Yw7ckz<7+X_SYeTNAaPui:e~x$ ,A=gkt*>UPL/}\a/#C~v2%ETiAY_sx;xve0yL??JWTtX_-NUzXyP38UdW#cmN1\4(X!c3m#%IbtB-3 Z-!xpZi!`E.s{(;aP=b11"!3wQu]1j@^V|;n=B|{l In-Reply-To: Marc Lehmann's message of "Thu, 3 Sep 1998 02:39:09 +0200" Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: 03 Sep 1998 20:52:16 -0700 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.42/XEmacs 21.0 - "Irish Goat" Sender: Marc Lehmann Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 811 Lines: 24 Marc Lehmann writes in beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl: > On Wed, Sep 02, 1998 at 08:13:29PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote: ... >> So... how risky is it for me to compile pgcc 1.1a with itself, using the >> -O5 or -O6 optimization switches? > I've run, for years, an -O6 -fno-omit-frame-pointer optimized version, until > I forgot about it. > then it bite me, sicne then, I compile pgcc with -V2.7.2 -O2. O.K. I presume the -V2.7.2 is for compiling the first stage and the -O2 is for stage2 and stage3? What command line will build like that? > I also don't support compilers compiled with -O6, the chance of them > being broken (undebuggable..) is too high. I see. > I believe it should be quite safe to use -O6 on pgcc in the 1.0/1.1 > releases, but don't count on that... That rather sums it up.