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.