View Single Post
Old 02 September 2016, 18:38   #73
FrodeSolheim
FS-UAE Developer

FrodeSolheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Førde, Norway
Age: 38
Posts: 3,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enverex View Post
"-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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
FrodeSolheim is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04205 seconds with 11 queries