This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Apple's -fast option for gcc

From: Jim Wilson <wilson at specifixinc dot com>
To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
Cc: Bradley Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:32:24 -0700
Subject: Re: Apple's -fast option for gcc
References: <hohe3crlcz.fsf@byrd.suse.de> <D85F773C-E932-11D7-8F0D-003065A77310@apple.com>

Mike Stump wrote:

-fast is very, very small. It just turns on 5-25 other, existing flags. There isn't a reason why it could not be contributed. Do others want it? It is _good_ for SPEC.

The set of options that gives best performance on SPEC for a PPC970 is unlikely to be right for other targets or for other programs. So what exactly does -fast mean when that is considered? How do we choose which options to include? Apple probably doesn't want to sacrifice SPEC performance to make the option useful to others, so perhaps it makes more sense to rename it to something like -mfast-spec to make it clear that it is target dependent, and is the set of options that is known to give best SPEC performance. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Apple's -fast option for gcc
  - From: Andreas Jaeger
- Re: Apple's -fast option for gcc
  - From: Mike Stump

References:
- Re: Apple's -fast option for gcc
  - From: Andreas Jaeger
- Re: Apple's -fast option for gcc
  - From: Mike Stump

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]