On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:16:12PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote:> So I propose: >[snip]> -O3 = aggressive optimization, regardless of computation time with the > effect of producing the fastest executableI would suggest splitting -O3 into 2 or more levels of optimization, because as written, -O3 sounds pretty scary: "regardless of computation time", and given some people who thing that several minutes of compile time is acceptable, I think it's useful to split it into "aggresive opt", "aggresive interprocedural opt", and "aggressive interprocedural analysis with interprocedural opt". -- Misha Brukman :: http://misha.brukman.net :: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 12:23, Misha Brukman wrote:> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:16:12PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > > So I propose: > > > [snip] > > -O3 = aggressive optimization, regardless of computation time with the > > effect of producing the fastest executable > > I would suggest splitting -O3 into 2 or more levels of optimization, > because as written, -O3 sounds pretty scary: "regardless of computation > time", and given some people who thing that several minutes of compile > time is acceptable, I think it's useful to split it into "aggresive > opt", "aggresive interprocedural opt", and "aggressive interprocedural > analysis with interprocedural opt".Okay, sounds good. How about: -O3agg -O3ipo -O3aggipo :) ? Reid. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040804/cf06290c/attachment.sig>
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:37:39PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote:> On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 12:23, Misha Brukman wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:16:12PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > > > So I propose: > > > > > [snip] > > > -O3 = aggressive optimization, regardless of computation time with > > > the effect of producing the fastest executable > > > > I would suggest splitting -O3 into 2 or more levels of optimization, > > because as written, -O3 sounds pretty scary: "regardless of > > computation time", and given some people who thing that several > > minutes of compile time is acceptable, I think it's useful to split > > it into "aggresive opt", "aggresive interprocedural opt", and > > "aggressive interprocedural analysis with interprocedural opt". > > Okay, sounds good. How about: > > -O3agg -O3ipo -O3aggipo > > :) ?I was thinking more like -O3, -O4, -O5, and the "super-duper run-time life-long optimization" is -O6 :) -- Misha Brukman :: http://misha.brukman.net :: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:> On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 12:23, Misha Brukman wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:16:12PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > > > So I propose: > > > > > [snip] > > > -O3 = aggressive optimization, regardless of computation time with the > > > effect of producing the fastest executable > > > > I would suggest splitting -O3 into 2 or more levels of optimization, > > because as written, -O3 sounds pretty scary: "regardless of computation > > time", and given some people who thing that several minutes of compile > > time is acceptable, I think it's useful to split it into "aggresive > > opt", "aggresive interprocedural opt", and "aggressive interprocedural > > analysis with interprocedural opt". > > Okay, sounds good. How about: > > -O3agg > -O3ipo > -O3aggipoHow about we figure it out as it gets closer :) -Chris -- http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ http://nondot.org/sabre/