From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Failed to compile from last bzr repo Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:14:38 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87vcyugxgs.fsf@gnu.org> <87wrjab38x.fsf@gmail.com> <83d3l1x6i6.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1302009296 8207 80.91.229.12 (5 Apr 2011 13:14:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:14:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Sean Sieger , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 05 15:14:52 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q765s-0001HA-AT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:14:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46273 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q765r-0001fF-LW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:14:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60034 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q765j-0001cF-97 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:14:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q765i-0002xA-Da for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:14:43 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:37528 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q765h-0002w8-8i; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:14:41 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEADsVm01FpZU1/2dsb2JhbAClaHiIebo2hWsElkY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,304,1299474000"; d="scan'208";a="103262243" Original-Received: from 69-165-149-53.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.165.149.53]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 05 Apr 2011 09:14:39 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id E8E4D58C5B; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:14:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:00:02 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:138176 Archived-At: >> takes just a tiny bit loner (especially with -O0 and all assertions >> enabled). > Because of it being slower during all the .el compilations, you mean? > I regularly build both -O2 --enable-checking and -O0 --enable-checking > and I haven't seen much difference, but now I'm curious. I don't know, to tell you the truth: I always compile with -O0, unions, and all assertions I can think of enabled. And I tend to find it significantly slower than the rare few times that I do a test build with all default settings. But I never bothered to measure it. Stefan