Andreas Fredriksson wrote:
On 5/29/05, Digby Tarvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On the subject of CPU flags, anyone tried optimizing gentoo for a
Toshiba Libretto (110CT)?
model name : Mobile Pentium MMX
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 mmx
This is in
Andreas Fredriksson wrote:
On 5/29/05, Digby Tarvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On the subject of CPU flags, anyone tried optimizing gentoo for a
Toshiba Libretto (110CT)?
model name : Mobile Pentium MMX
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 mmx
This is in
On 5/29/05, Digby Tarvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the subject of CPU flags, anyone tried optimizing gentoo for a
> Toshiba Libretto (110CT)?
> model name : Mobile Pentium MMX
> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 mmx
This is indeed a "classic" pentium chip
On 5/29/05, Digby Tarvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> how do I determine which of the stage3 installation files:
> stage3-athlon-xp-2005.0.tar.bz2
> stage3-i686-2005.0.tar.bz2
> stage3-pentium3-2005.0.tar.bz2
> stage3-pentium4-2005.0.tar.bz2
> stage3-x86-2005
On the subject of CPU flags, anyone tried optimizing gentoo for a
Toshiba Libretto (110CT)?
how do I determine which of the stage3 installation files:
stage3-athlon-xp-2005.0.tar.bz2
stage3-i686-2005.0.tar.bz2
stage3-pentium3-2005.0.tar.bz2
stage3-pentium4-2005.0.ta
On 5/28/05, Ryan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Optimization level 9 (-O9)? Thats a laugh. Read the GCC man page, the
> optimization levels are just groupings of other optimization flags (-O1, -O2,
> -O3, -O0, -Os), with optimization level 3 (-O3) containing the most
> optimization flags.
Ok already, we hear you. No need to post the same message 5 times.
And BTW, it is a "feature" of GMail that you don't see your own posts.
Cheers,
-Richard
Ryan Lynch wrote:
>Optimization level 9 (-O9)? Thats a laugh. Read the GCC man page, the
>optimization levels are just groupings of oth
Optimization level 9 (-O9)? Thats a laugh. Read the GCC man page, the
optimization levels are just groupings of other optimization flags (-O1, -O2,
-O3, -O0, -Os), with optimization level 3 (-O3) containing the most
optimization flags. The numbers don't correlate to any kind of optimization
Optimization level 9 (-O9)? Thats a laugh. Read the GCC man page, the
optimization levels are just groupings of other optimization flags (-O1, -O2,
-O3, -O0, -Os), with optimization level 3 (-O3) containing the most
optimization flags. The numbers don't correlate to any kind of optimization
Optimization level 9 (-O9)? Thats a laugh. Read the GCC man page, the
optimization levels are just groupings of other optimization flags (-O1, -O2,
-O3, -O0, -Os), with optimization level 3 (-O3) containing the most
optimization flags. The numbers don't correlate to any kind of optimization
Optimization level 9 (-O9)? Thats a laugh. Read the GCC man page, the
optimization levels are just groupings of other optimization flags (-O1, -O2,
-O3, -O0, -Os), with optimization level 3 (-O3) containing the most
optimization flags. The numbers don't correlate to any kind of optimization
On Monday 23 May 2005 05:09 pm, Colin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -O3: The highest performance optimization level before code starts to
> break. It goes up to -O9 if you're daring. (Use -Os to compile for
> size.) Implies a lot of stuff.
Ack! What? It does *not* go up to -O9 and never has.
* On Tue May-24-2005 at 01:08:51 AM +0200, Julien Cayzac said:
> On 5/24/05, Richard Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [ recommandations about performance cflags ]
>
> While we're at optimizing stuff, here are my CFLAGS (athlon-xp mobile,
> barton core):
>
> CFLAGS="-O2 -march=athlon-xp -msse -
On 5/24/05, Richard Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ recommandations about performance cflags ]
While we're at optimizing stuff, here are my CFLAGS (athlon-xp mobile,
barton core):
CFLAGS="-O2 -march=athlon-xp -msse -mfpmath=sse -pipe
-finline-functions -fsched2-use-superblocks -fsched2-use-tr
Colin wrote:
> -funroll-loops: If you can tell how many times a loop will loop
> (mainly for loops), then unroll it. Does it increase performance? If
> it does, it's unnoticeable. Don't tell anyone you use it though. It
> spreads the whole "Gentoo ricer" myth that's been going around the
> I
Walter Dnes wrote:
Currently, I use "-march=i686" for my 3 machines, a P4, a PIII, and a
PII (and a partridge in a pear tr).
According to the gcc docs at...
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3.5/gcc/i386-and-x86_002d64-Options.html#i386-and-x86_002d64-Options
"i586 is equivalent to
16 matches
Mail list logo
