Quote:
Originally Posted by Enverex
"-no-pie" wasn't valid in LDFLAGs, but after adding it to my C(XX)FLAGs and rebuilding, the error went away. Looks like that may need to be forced in the makefile.
|
According to documentation, "-no-pie" is a linker flag, and it works fine if I run ./configure LDFLAGS="-no-pie"
But yes, maybe that option needs to be enabled by configure (if/when supported by gcc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enverex
I'm familiar, but if a specific program is broken by "more serious" flags then that program should be setting the lower flags at compile time. I assume FS-UAE's makefile doesn't specify an optimization level, so it's using my defaults.
My entire system (well, everything that's compiled by source which is a sizable amount) is using these flags and I've not actually run into any other issues.
|
Enabling optimizations past "O2" is definitively not supported. You are free to do so, but remember to mention that if filing bug reports. Actually, test with an fs-uae compiled with default optimizations before filing a bug report...
(I am not going to force a specific optimization level though)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbl007
But I admit, it could be interesting to compare JIT-compiler performance with different gcc optimizations flags.  |
It will have next to no impact on performance
(The reason is that the JIT-generated code is generated by the UAE code, not the C compiler, so GCC is not in any way involved in the generated JIT code).
In addition, previous tests (done by me) have shown very little general benefits for FS-UAE, if any at all, from enabling more aggressive optimizations than -O2.