Re: Compilation failure in wine-1.1.44

[wylda at volny.cz]

Hi Marcus,

> > * better backtraces for bug reports
>
> -O2 works like a charm there too, at least for me.

I think i read that somewhere and if i understood that correctly, my
conclusion at that time was, that -02 optimizes the code, so it can
"omit some" part of code and replace them by faster alternative. But
the debuging symbols then don't correspond such optimized code... And
even if i usually don't understand those backtraces, i want to provide
them as much readable for developer as possible.


> * Not testing the code under Release conditions.

I guess, that running Word2007 under linux/wine also does not meet release
conditions by Microsoft ;-) Anyway, i hope that if i run Win program
calculating PI on 4 decimal place, both -O0 and -02 will give me 3.1415


> * Slow code.

This line caused all this replay :) Because it does not says "How much".
So i did some benchmarking which maybe some others find useful.

Compilation of 1.1.43 -O0:
* real 1m 58sec

Compilation of 1.1.43 -O2:
* real 3m 29sec

i.e. -02 is 77% slower. So 10 round of regression test (with in-between
make distclean) is slower in case of -02 cca about 15m 10sec. That's
a lot especially if i want to take bug testing seriously.

Quake 3 1600x1200:
-O0: 215.0 FPS
-O2: 220.1 FPS (2% faster)

Quake 3 640x480:
-O0: 548.3 FPS
-O2: 581.0 FPS (6% faster)

As i'm not pro-gamer anymore and the -O2 results aren't convincing i'll
stay at -O0. Of course everyone has different needs and can find -O2
useful.

BTW: In case of game tests, i did at least five tests for each scenario.