|Subject:||[Bug-gnubg] Some questions about build options and toolchain|
|Date:||Sun, 18 Jan 2015 00:39:58 +0100 (CET)|
|User-agent:||Alpine 2.11 (BSF 23 2013-08-11)|
Is it really needed or is it a relic from early SSE days, trying to build a unique binary with both SSE and non-SSE evaluation routines and the right one selected at runtime ?
On my machine, I compile with -march=native -mtune=native, get SSE instructions everywhere, not just in libsimd_la-XXX objects and everything works fine.
Second question, for those who make binary packages for various distributions :
With gnubg, the -O3 compilation flag brings a significant speed improvement. -ffast-math helps as well.
What is your policy about such flags in upstream sources ? Do you follow them ? Override them ? Take them as a hint and decide on a case by case basis ? I suppose the issue alredy happens with numerical libraries, audio and video processing code, etc...
Finally, would it cause trouble to someone if gnubg was build as C99 code (-std=gnu99 really, since it would have to cater with embedded asm).
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|