From richdr@microsoft.com Mon Apr 21 17:53:52 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] [nil "Mon" "21" "April" "1997" "17:53:45" "-0700" "Richard Draves" "richdr@microsoft.com" "" "49" "RE: another try" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from INET-03-IMC.microsoft.com (mail3.microsoft.com [131.107.3.23]) by june.cs.washington.edu (8.8.5+CS/7.2ju) with ESMTP id RAA17147 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:53:52 -0700 Received: by INET-03-IMC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.14) id ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:54:36 -0700 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.14) From: Richard Draves To: "'voelker@cs.washington.edu'" Subject: RE: another try Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:53:45 -0700 Not just for this, but the next time you recompile I'd change to space optimizations with -Oxs. -Oy -Gy -GF are also good. > -----Original Message----- > From: voelker@cs.washington.edu [SMTP:voelker@cs.washington.edu] > Sent: Monday, April 21, 1997 5:26 PM > To: Richard Draves > Subject: RE: another try > > think it's worth recompiling then? > > -geoff > > Richard Draves writes: > > Products around here uses space optimizations - it actually ends up > > being faster because it improves i-cache performance. Also means > that > > it's better tested. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: voelker@cs.washington.edu > [SMTP:voelker@cs.washington.edu] > > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 1997 9:45 AM > > > To: dima@interlog.com > > > Cc: ntemacs-users@cs.washington.edu > > > Subject: Re: another try > > > > > > They are compiled with speed optimizations. > > > > > > -geoff > > > > > > Dmitry Yaitskov writes: > > > > Is the optimized version compiled with full optimizations, or is > it > > > > optimized for space? Thanks. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Dmitry Yaitskov > > > > dima@interlog.com (home) > > > > dyaitskov@insystems.com (work)>I've recompiled the Emacs > > > distributions > > > > with optimizations with > > > > >MSVC4.0, which does not have the pipe behavior introduced with > 4.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From richdr@microsoft.com Mon Apr 21 17:53:52 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil t t nil nil nil nil] [nil "Mon" "21" "April" "1997" "17:53:45" "-0700" "Richard Draves" "richdr@microsoft.com" "" "49" "RE: another try" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from INET-03-IMC.microsoft.com (mail3.microsoft.com [131.107.3.23]) by june.cs.washington.edu (8.8.5+CS/7.2ju) with ESMTP id RAA17147 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:53:52 -0700 Received: by INET-03-IMC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.14) id ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:54:36 -0700 Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.14) From: Richard Draves To: "'voelker@cs.washington.edu'" Subject: RE: another try Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:53:45 -0700 Not just for this, but the next time you recompile I'd change to space optimizations with -Oxs. -Oy -Gy -GF are also good. > -----Original Message----- > From: voelker@cs.washington.edu [SMTP:voelker@cs.washington.edu] > Sent: Monday, April 21, 1997 5:26 PM > To: Richard Draves > Subject: RE: another try > > think it's worth recompiling then? > > -geoff > > Richard Draves writes: > > Products around here uses space optimizations - it actually ends up > > being faster because it improves i-cache performance. Also means > that > > it's better tested. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: voelker@cs.washington.edu > [SMTP:voelker@cs.washington.edu] > > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 1997 9:45 AM > > > To: dima@interlog.com > > > Cc: ntemacs-users@cs.washington.edu > > > Subject: Re: another try > > > > > > They are compiled with speed optimizations. > > > > > > -geoff > > > > > > Dmitry Yaitskov writes: > > > > Is the optimized version compiled with full optimizations, or is > it > > > > optimized for space? Thanks. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Dmitry Yaitskov > > > > dima@interlog.com (home) > > > > dyaitskov@insystems.com (work)>I've recompiled the Emacs > > > distributions > > > > with optimizations with > > > > >MSVC4.0, which does not have the pipe behavior introduced with > 4.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >