This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@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] |
"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jkazos@vt.edu> writes: > I know that for some things, like GCC itself, or like GLibC, it's > dangerous to screw around with the default optimization settings, but > what about for random package X? Just how safe are the optimization > algorithms? Let's say I compile with -O3, and it compiles and installs > successfully, and seems to give no immediate horrific failures when > running, is that good enough for a production system? Or can there be > some tiny timebombs hidden in there because of some strange construct > the package writer used? The easy answer is to go with the rumor that -O2 is the most well-tested set of optimimzation flags, and use that. The right answer, (i.e., the hard way) is to develop a through set of test cases, and run them at severl optimization levels, and if you discover a difference, file a bug report, and reduce your default optimization level. (Here, I assume you have previously established a need for using the best possible optimization.) Note that glibc is quite large, since it included every unix c library extension ever concieved, contains a fair portion of unusual constructs, and, most importantly, has extrodinarily stringent correctness demands, since nearly every program on a glibc-based system depends on it (Some of them (mis)using it in unusual constructs.)
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |