From: Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
Date: 2005-11-29T01:18:06+09:00
Subject: Re: building ruby for speed: wise or otherwise?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Joel VanderWerf wrote:

> Hugh Sasse wrote:
> > My active record based script is taking longer than I'd like.
> > While I wait for approval to get a faster machine :-) I'm wondering
> > about rebuilding ruby 1.8.2 (which I have now) and changing the
> > CFLAGS from the default 
> > CFLAGS=-g -O2
> > to 
> > CFLAGS=-O3
> > or something of the sort.  I'm presently using gcc-3.4.3 on
> > Solaris9.  Has anyone done this and if so is there anything I should
> > watch out for?  ISTR reported problems when building other packages
> > with high -O values in the past. 
> > 
> > Would the answer be different for gcc-4.0.2?
> 
> If gcc-4.x is an option, try it. Anecdotally, it's substantially faster

Yes, I'm unpacking the tarball now, as x.0.2 is sufficiently tried
and tested to be worth looking at, for my situation.

> than 3.x. In fact, it's one less reason for me to use msvc on windows:
> code compiled with gcc-4.0 (with -O2) turns out to be faster than msvc
> for some numerically intensive simulation code running as a ruby
> extension, whereas msvc was faster than gcc-3.x output code. YMMV.

thanks for that.  Still curious about dropping -g and bumping up to
-03 though... :-)
> 
        Hugh