Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <59F0E348.6020807@adelielinux.org>
References: <20171025164614.14c4c57e@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> <59F0E348.6020807@adelielinux.org>
From: William Pitcock <nenolod@dereferenced.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:36:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+T2pCH2JffrB_V_AUym6982Xxx9jLRDVO8ECVKrH4Z31zso3A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] force compile flag for musl?
To: "A. Wilcox" <awilfox@adelielinux.org>
Cc: alpine-dev <alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 2:17 PM, A. Wilcox <awilfox@adelielinux.org> wrote:
> On 25/10/17 09:46, Natanael Copa wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I wonder what you think about overriding the -Os compile flag for
>> musl, and hardcode it to -O2.
>
>
> Possibly.  Is there some benchmarks available, maybe using libc-test
> or such?
>
>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> +       # force -O2 compile flag for better performance +
>> CFLAGS=3D"-O2" \
>
>
> No.  Stuff in abuild.conf needs to be preserved and -O2 tacked on the
> end (GCC will only honour last -O flag passed, so this is what you want).
>
> This is INCREDIBLY important to us at Ad=C3=A9lie because for instance
> ppc64 BE requires -fno-inline-small-functions due to GCC bug elsewise
> it will cause ABI issues with long double.  We also use -march / -mcpu
> which would be discarded here as well, which would cause it to be
> slower on some platforms (-O2 won't help as much on x86_32 as it would
> on -march=3Dpentium4 x86_32, for instance).

Maybe we should fix the specfiles to bring in
-fno-inline-small-functions on ppc64/ppc64le?

This seems like something that could hurt if you run into it on a ppc64 mac=
hine.

William


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---