From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2005-11-29T01:31:23+09:00
Subject: Re: building ruby for speed: wise or otherwise?

Daniel Berger wrote:
> Joel VanderWerf wrote:
...
>> If gcc-4.x is an option, try it. Anecdotally, it's substantially faster
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what options did you pass to cl when using MSVC?

The default flags generated by mkmf.rb:

CC = cl -nologo
CFLAGS   =  -MD -Zi -O2b2xg- -G6
CPPFLAGS = -I. -I$(topdir) -I$(hdrdir) -I$(srcdir)  -I. -I./..
-I./../missing

.c.obj:
	$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) -c -Tc$(<:\=/)

I've never played around with the optimization flags for msvc (partly
because msvc always seemed so much faster than gcc).

-- 
      vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407