From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1509 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: crypt_blowfish integration, optimization Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:08:14 -0400 Message-ID: <20120810180814.GB27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120808062706.GA23135@openwall.com> <20120808214855.GL27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120809033613.GA24926@openwall.com> <20120809072940.GA26288@openwall.com> <20120809105348.GA27361@openwall.com> <20120809214654.GU27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120809222103.GA29365@openwall.com> <20120809223258.GW27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120810171803.GB29839@openwall.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1344622050 30646 80.91.229.3 (10 Aug 2012 18:07:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:07:30 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1510-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Aug 10 20:07:30 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SztcP-0008DH-Ux for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:07:30 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 1821 invoked by uid 550); 10 Aug 2012 18:07:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 1813 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2012 18:07:28 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120810171803.GB29839@openwall.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1509 Archived-At: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:18:03PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > > Not sure. I've found -Q --help=optimizers completely unreliable in the > > past though. It only reports minimal differences between -Os, -O2, and > > -O3, and trying to start with -O3 and reproduce -Os by just changing > > the options that are different does not give effects even remotely > > similar to -Os. > > Frankly, this matches my experience. OK, -Q --help=optimizers is > unreliable. But is -O3 supposed to include -funroll-loops now? Does > it? Or did you get loop unrolling done for some other reason? I think > this needs to be understood by us. Yes, -O3 includes -funroll-loops, which is intelligent about choosing which loops to unroll. There's -funroll-all-loops that's much more aggressive and not included in any -O level by default. Rich