| 1 |
On 12/18/2011 10:49 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Just like with any other optimization switch, there can be bugs. If |
| 4 |
> Gentoo says it doesn't support graphite, then I'd stay away from it |
| 5 |
> because Gentoo devs might not listen to your bug reports if you use |
| 6 |
> it. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I've been using gcc with graphite support for about a year or so and |
| 9 |
I've had zero problems so far. (I should also mention that I haven't |
| 10 |
measured how much difference it makes, either.) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Very important to notice that *building* gcc with graphite support is |
| 13 |
not at all the same as *using* graphite support while compiling. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
To actually *use* your graphite support, you must include these CFLAGS |
| 16 |
while compiling each package: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-floop-block -floop-strip-mine -floop-interchange |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That implies that you can turn off graphite support by removing those |
| 21 |
flags and recompiling your buggy package before filing a bug report. |
| 22 |
(I did that only once and discovered that it didn't change the bug |
| 23 |
at all.) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
IIRC, gcc doesn't use those flags while compiling itself, but I could |
| 26 |
be mistaken about that. I'll check again next time I compile gcc. |
Archives