Wine compiler options benchmarks

[Ben Hodgetts]

Tomas Carnecky wrote:
> 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

I know, I was just listing "all" the flags I was using. Wall was only in 
there because I copied the CFLAGs from Lame which got a massive boost 
using a certain set which I copied over entirely.

Ben H.