• David Nadlinger (3/3) Mar 17 2013 See: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/315
• John Colvin (2/5) Mar 17 2013 why not O5?
• David Nadlinger (5/12) Mar 18 2013 Because -O5 is the same as -O3 right now. I thought this was
• John Colvin (3/17) Mar 18 2013 Far from being documented as equivalent to O3, ldc2 --help says
• David Nadlinger (5/7) Mar 18 2013 Well, it's correct in so far as they were intended for LTO. But
• deadalnix (2/5) Mar 18 2013 What is the current behavior ? What is clang's behavior ?
• Marco Leise (11/16) May 26 2013 My opinion is to benchmark. How much longer is the compile
• Marco Leise (4/4) May 26 2013 P.S.: If this is for the ldmd wrapper only I agree with

"David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:

See: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/315

Any further opinions?

David

"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 18:33:57 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
 See: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/315

 Any further opinions?

 David

why not O5?

"David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:

On Monday, 18 March 2013 at 02:25:17 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
 On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 18:33:57 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
 See: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/315

 Any further opinions?

 David

 why not O5?

Because -O5 is the same as -O3 right now. I thought this was 
documented somewhere, but apparently this is not the case. Do you 
want to fix it? ;)

David

"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 18 March 2013 at 12:42:10 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
 On Monday, 18 March 2013 at 02:25:17 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
 On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 18:33:57 UTC, David Nadlinger 
 wrote:
 See: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/315

 Any further opinions?

 David

 why not O5?

 Because -O5 is the same as -O3 right now. I thought this was 
 documented somewhere, but apparently this is not the case. Do 
 you want to fix it? ;)

 David

Far from being documented as equivalent to O3, ldc2 --help says 
O4 and O5 are "link-time optimization" Is this also incorrect?

"David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:

On Monday, 18 March 2013 at 16:39:14 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
 Far from being documented as equivalent to O3, ldc2 --help says 
 O4 and O5 are "link-time optimization" Is this also incorrect?

Well, it's correct in so far as they were intended for LTO. But 
as far as I remember, they were never implemented, and certainly 
aren't right now.

David

"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 18:33:57 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
 See: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/315

 Any further opinions?

 David

What is the current behavior ? What is clang's behavior ?

Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:

Am Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:33:54 +0100
schrieb "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at>:

 See: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/315
 
 Any further opinions?
 
 David

My opinion is to benchmark. How much longer is the compile
time? How many programs benefit? How many bad cases are there
where the optimizations slow down the executable by excessive
unrolling or similar?
Last time I tried LDC's optimizations I saw a minor slowdown
in one program, and overall little gain (compared to the more
substantial gains of -O3 in GDC).

-- 
Marco

Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:

P.S.: If this is for the ldmd wrapper only I agree with
the arguments for merging the pull request. I.e.: +1

-- 
Marco