Wine compiler options benchmarks

[Tomas Carnecky]

Ben Hodgetts (Enverex) wrote:
> Just in-case anyone was ever curious about how well Wine performs with 
> different C/XXFLAGs I did a test today with RC5 to see how much of a 
> difference it makes with 3DMark 2001 SE, nothing major but if someone 
> can think of a better benchmark to try, please let me know (I had hoped 
> to try Oblivion or some such but it has no benchmark feature).
> 
> Core2Quad Q9450 @ 3.4Ghz || 4GB PC8500 5-5-5-15 || GCC 4.3.1 || Linux 2.6.25
> 3DMark 2001 SE B300. Wine 1.0-rc5.
> 
> 28576		-march=native -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer
> 28522		-march=native -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -mfpmath=sse,387
> 28511		-march=native -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer
> 28427		-march=native -O3  -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math 
> -funroll-loops -Wall -pipe
> 28426		-march=native -O2 -pipe -mfpmath=sse,387
> 28311		-march=native -O2 -pipe
> 28270		-march=native -Os -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer
> 28126		-O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer
> 28072		Wine Default (-g -O2)
> 27984		-march=native -O3 -pipe
> 27646		-march=native -Os -pipe


-pipe only speeds up compilation, not the resulting machine code.
-Wall makes gcc show more warnings about the code and again, it does not 
speed up the code.

tom