perfect compile options

Jeffrey B. Ferland autocracy at
Tue Jan 9 16:30:22 PST 2001

Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> And it isn't no. Actually the next book release doens't include these
> optimizations anymore. It often causes more grief than worth, and even with
> optimization I never found any performance increase, so I stopped using it
> (then again others may notice an increase, it highly depends on the used
> hardware).
> You'd have to read the gcc info page to find out about all the options you
> can pass to GCC and what they mean. Based on those descriptions you decide
> whether you want to use it or not.

To be specific, it is my belief (totally unverified by benchmarks) that these
optimizations are only really noticeable on slower machines or when you have a
large amount of processing going on. Most things aren't worth compiling like
this. For example (all of these apply to "modern" machines): you won't see any
difference in your kernel speed unless you've got some serious stuff running
(server-side dynamic webpages that use a database and math), nor will you notice
and help in compiling bash with these flags, unless you run a telnet system
where lots of people use bash. You might, however, notice improvements in glibc
(used heavily and by most programs), gcc (if that isn't cpu intesive at
times...), and graphics stuff (math, math, math). I use optimizations myself,
but unless you're into hassling yourself, you may want to just drop them. Take
your pick...


Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list