On Mar 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM, Michael Hudson wrote: > "A.M. Kuchling" <amk at amk.ca> writes: > >> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 08:59:52 -0500, Phillip J. Eby >> <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: >>> I personally don't think it'll help much, if the goal is to reduce >>> cache misses. After all, the code is all still there. But, it >>> should not do >> >> For a planned PyCon lightning talk, I'm benchmarking various >> combinations of optimizer options. >> One interesting result: CVS Python gets 25997 pystones on my machine >> when compiled with >> -O3 (the default), but 26707 when compiled with gcc's -Os flag. -Os >> optimizes for size, >> running the subset of the -O2 optimizations that don't increase code >> size. > > What architecture? I played around on my ibook with various > compilation options and running with -fprofile-arcs and so on and > basically came to the conclusion that nothing made very much > difference (once past -O2). Can't remember if I tried -Os. If you really want faster code you should tell the compiler about the particular architecture you need to run it on. For example, Apple's gcc 3.3 has an optimization flag named "-fast" that will (supposedly) produce fast non-PIC code that will only run on 64bit G5 processors (but can be scaled back to G4 with -mcpu=7450, and probably back to G3 in a similar way). -bob
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4