Re: DAC960 and GCC
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Wakko Warner wrote:
> Actually, it did compile when I removed -O2. I haven't tried it yet
That's good news. For awhile, it wouldn't compile no matter what I
tried. I put the whole matter on the shelf back then because nobody was
complaining about it anyway :-)
> What kind of performance hit will happen with -O2 removed?
Shouldn't be much. Not sure what kind of hit a kernel-space driver would
take if it's not -O2'ed. If you run any tests, please report the results
as I suspect that I'm not the only curious party.
> On my alpha, I have firmare 2.70 (I modded the module the other guy compiled
> for me so it would work. thankfully it was just a string I changed from
> 2.73 to 2.00) and it works w/o any problems. 9.89mb/sec read from a raid0
> of 3 2gb disks.
>
> A friend of mine on a SMP pc is running the same card (nec branded firmware)
> with firmware 2.39 and is getting speeds about 2mb slower than me but he's
> using a raid 5 on 4 4gb disks
Not bad...not phenominal, but not bad at all (I'm getting really used to
fibre-channel stuff lately, so ignore me :-P).
> what about gcc 3.0? It doesn't work well on my alpha, but is it not
> recommended?
I haven't had many problems with 3.0 yet (I test it fairly frequently),
but it does have problems that have since been fixed upstream for the
future 3.1. I've built kernels with it and never had problems with those,
but given the amount of flux that is still going on from a C++ standpoint,
I haven't been comfortable enough to say "let's go with it starting today
by default". Basically, it's fun to play with and compare to 2.95.4, but
I'm not ready to rely on it yet.
C
Reply to: