1 |
Richard Fish schrieb: |
2 |
> On 8/21/06, Stefan G. Weichinger <lists@×××××.at> wrote: |
3 |
>> Acer TM 634 |
4 |
>> P4-M 1.8GHz (cpu family : 15, model : 2) |
5 |
>> 512 MB RAM |
6 |
>> 30 GB 5200 rpm HDD |
7 |
> |
8 |
> It's all relative. I have a 2.1Ghz Core Duo with 2G of RAM and a |
9 |
> 160Gb HD, so *I* would consider your laptop, um, "underpowered". :-) |
10 |
|
11 |
Oh my .... ;) |
12 |
So you see, it is even more important to choose the right flags with |
13 |
such an outdated box ;-) |
14 |
|
15 |
> But I also run with -Os. The fact is that some things will run |
16 |
> slightly faster at -Os than -O2, and some things will be slightly |
17 |
> slower. The same applies comparing -O3 to -O2, or -O3 to -Os; it all |
18 |
> depends on what you are doing at the moment. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> So you should not assume that -O3 is faster for some random task just |
21 |
> because it is "more optimized". It simply makes different trade-offs |
22 |
> than -O2 or -Os, and because of the way CPUs and caches work these |
23 |
> days, those trade-offs may help or hurt a particular segment of code. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> FYI, in all of the tests I did, the performance was within 10% of the |
26 |
> median. The real deciding factor for me now is that -Os seems to take |
27 |
> much less time and memory to compile than -O2 or -O3. And being a |
28 |
> ~arch user, time-to-compile is a nice thing to reduce. |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
I am going the -Os-way now, using your script from your other posting. |
32 |
|
33 |
Thanks a lot for the information, |
34 |
Stefan |
35 |
-- |
36 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |