Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o>
To: Tom Martin <tom@×××××××××××××××××××××.uk>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Default -O CFLAG in make.conf
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:10:16
Message-Id: 20040125191013.GB31443@cerberus.oppresses.us
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Default -O CFLAG in make.conf by Tom Martin
1 On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 12:18:56PM +0000, Tom Martin wrote:
2 > Hello all,
3 >
4 > Without wanting to become flame bait at all.. I'd just like to know why
5 > -O3 is the default (commented) -O in make.conf, even for x86 stage
6 > tarballs (I don't really know about the stageballs on other
7 > architectures). Although the usefulness / harm of this flag has been
8 > discussed to death, on the vast majority of x86 /desktop/ machines I
9 > don't really think this flag is that suitable, and I know many agree.
10 >
11 > The reason I ask is because many people who didn't really change the
12 > default flags beyond setting -march have come on #gentoo or on the
13 > forums unsatisfied with performance of Gentoo, and there are also
14 > several packages that still won't compile with -O3.
15 >
16 > As a default for x86, wouldn't -O2 be more suitable? My personal
17 > viewpoint is that if you want to set -O3 on x86, go ahead. But if you
18 > do, you should know why you want to do it, and what affects it will
19 > have. Many beginners who haven't really got their heads around CFLAGS
20 > will possibly read somewhere that -O3 gives the most optimisation and be
21 > sold there and then.
22 >
23
24 I agree. Could you please file a bug about this if there isn't one
25 already and post the bug number here?
26
27 --
28 Jon Portnoy
29 avenj/irc.freenode.net
30
31 --
32 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list