![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Saturday 21 December 2002 04:10 pm, folkert@vanheusden.com wrote: > > > Is there any risk using -O3 instead of -O2 to compile the > > > kernel, and why? > > > > * It might uncover subtle bugs that would otherwise not occur. > > I wonder: for the sake of performance and good use of the precious > clock- cycles, shouldn't there be made a start of fixing those > bugs? Assuming that the bugs you're talking about are not > compiler-bugs, they *are* bugs in the code that should be fixed, > shouldn't they? > > > * Compiling with unusual options means that less people will know > > about any problems it causes you. > > So, let's make it -O6 per default for 2.7.x/3.1.x? Let's not. I'd rather have the best kernel developers concentrating on finishing important kernel features rather than digging their way out of esoteric optimizer debugging sessions only to find it was a flaw in gcc. The difference in performance boost between -O2 and greater levels isn't usually enough to make a significant impact, not as significant as the introduction of important new features, for example. ---scott - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [W:0.854 / U:0.230 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||