On Sunday 06 November 2005 01:12, Robert Dewar wrote: > Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>I guess the issue is what does "huge" mean, it is hard to discuss based > >>>on loaded adjectives taking the place of data :-) > >> > >>Huge here means 15-20% on x86* hosts. > > > > I don't consider this huge for -O3. I think -O3 can be slower if it > > achieves better code, and -funroll-loops makes it do just that. > > I would certainly agree, I am not sure I even find it huge for -O2. > After all 20% compile time represents a couple of months advance > in computer hardware (and that is true across the board, even if > you are talking about upgrading 1990 hardware to 1991 hardware :-))
You must not have been paying attention to one of the most frequent complaints about gcc, which is that it is dog slow already ;-) Gr. Steven
