[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?
From: |
John Cowan |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default? |
Date: |
Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:38:39 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
Peter Bex scripsit:
> Am I going completely mad and am I missing something obvious? Is there
> a good reason why optimizing for speed isn't the default?
It's no more than a guess, but historically -O2 and -O3 tickled bugs that
didn't appear at -O1. Probably someone (Felix?) fell over such a bug
long ago, removed the -On argument, saw the bug go away, and left it
at that. Ghu knows chicken's output is a torture test for C compilers.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan address@hidden
Where the wombat has walked, it will inevitably walk again.
(even through brick walls!)
- [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?, Peter Bex, 2014/11/02
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?,
John Cowan <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?, Felix Winkelmann, 2014/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?, Peter Bex, 2014/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?, Sven Hartrumpf, 2014/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?, Peter Bex, 2014/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?, John Cowan, 2014/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?, Sven Hartrumpf, 2014/11/05
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] Why isn't OPTIMIZE_FOR_SPEED the default?, Felix Winkelmann, 2014/11/03