Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL...
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 873csi5txb.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... (Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL...
Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL... |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes: > Agreed, however some of the loop-unrolling might prove to have some > optimization, but we'll see. I'd like to think that there's some > actual value in -O6 beyond the geek appeal of being able to say it's > been compiled with all the optimizations possible. ::shrug:: BTW, -O3 is the highest GCC optimization level; anything higher than that is synonymous with -O3, I believe. Also, -O3 doesn't have anything to do with loop unrolling, AFAIK. As for the value of enabling that flag, it depends IMHO on the performance gain you see. If there is a significance difference, let -hackers know, and it might be worth considering enabling it by default for certain platforms. If the performance difference is negligible (which is what I'd suspect), I don't think it's worth the code bloat, reduced debuggability, or the potential for running into more compiler bugs. Also, if -O3 *is* a good compiler option, I dislike the idea of enabling it for your own packages but no one else's. IMHO distributors should not futz with packages more than is strictely necessary, and a change like this seems both unwarranted, and potentially dangerous. If -O3 is a good idea, we should make the change for the appropriate platforms in the official source, and let it get the widespread testing it requires. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: