From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,cf34599caf2fa938
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GNAT function calling overhead
Date: 1995/04/07
Message-ID: <dewar.797290427@gnat>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100070434
references: <3m0nv1$pv2@nef.ens.fr> <3m3d14$e21@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

T.E.D. asks a good question, did you turn optimizations on?

The Unix style in compilers is to default to no optimization. The code
generated by GCC with no optimization is horrible! 

It is very important that any performance measurements are made with
optimization turned on (-O3), otherwise they are completely meaningless.

We have wondered whether on the PC ports, it would be better to have
optimization on be the default, because this is more common with PC
compilers, and the extra time for compiling in -O3 mode on the PC is
very small (unlike some of the RISC machines).

I would be interested in people's input on this issue (optimization
default).