1 |
On 03. 04. 2011 16:04, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
3 |
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:32 Duncan wrote: |
4 |
>>> Ryan Hill posted on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:11:12 -0600 as excerpted: |
5 |
>>>> You may also want to test your packages with the new -Ofast option to |
6 |
>>>> be sure it doesn't have any hardcoded assumptions about -O flags. |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> The release description I've read for -Ofast says it includes -fast-math, |
9 |
>>> among other things, a flag Gentoo has always strongly discouraged (you |
10 |
>>> break with it, you keep the pieces) and which can get bugs resolved/ |
11 |
>>> invalid as a result. |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>> Now that gcc 4.6 itself is more strongly supporting it as enabled with one |
14 |
>>> of the -O options, is that policy going to change, or is Gentoo going to |
15 |
>>> officially not support -Ofast, as well? |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> I doubt we will. If a package breaks because of -Ofast there's really |
18 |
>> nothing we can do about it. It's not a bug in the compiler or the package, |
19 |
>> it's that you explicitly told it to generate non-standard-conformant code. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> obviously we will look at ICEs and such, but in terms of apps |
22 |
> misbehaving at runtime, most likely we'll write it up as not a bug |
23 |
> like Ryan says |
24 |
> -mike |
25 |
> |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
Maybe slightly off topic, but still.. |
29 |
|
30 |
1. I've noticed that -Ofast and couple other bits on gcc which I have |
31 |
seen on Open64 before. Are these new optimisations "imported" from |
32 |
Open64 or is this simply the result of good old competition of both teams ? |
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
2. Is there any info on gcc version that will support -march=Bulldozer ? |
36 |
I have googled a couple of gcc-related posts about optimizing for this |
37 |
CPU architecture intricacies and I have hoped to see support for it in |
38 |
4.6... Is this stuff still in early development or is it just waiting |
39 |
for AMD to ship the chips due to some kind of NDA ? |