gcc -O4 when?

>>59068766
checked 'em

>>59068766

> 66 on the pic
> dubs

nice wizardry, anon
where can I buy one?

Who needs -O4 when you have -Ofast?

What did turbo even do?

>>59068906
You don't want to know. Trust me, it was only used in cases of dire emergency.

>>59068906
Just more Hz. It was a time that software was so primitive, some of it would literally run faster than you wanted. It was especially annoying on some early games like the King's Quest I to III if I recall correctly.

fucking CHECKED

>>59068906
Turned your CPU to its "normal" speed.
When turbo was off, it actually slowed down for legacy applications to run right.

>>59068931
They wouldn't run "right". They literally had no timer restrictions at all. They would run approximately close to the even earlier and shittier processors like the 8088.

>>59068766
-Ofast is a thing fyi

but legit. if that isn't -Fomg-optimized enough you can probably throw in a few more flags like -flto and shit.

>>59068906
>What did turbo even do?

actually made the CPU run slower for software with buggy timing logic that didn't expect to be running on super bentiums.

>>59068922
>>59068931
>>59068955
you guys are backwards. the stupid button actually slowed shit way down from the normal state.

>>59068994
That was a joke meme. I was using such computers. Turbo was the fast speed.

>>59068906
toggles between the speed at which an original PC ran, and the speed the cpu in your machine can run at

it's a limiter, not an overclock or whatever
being engaged is just your cpu's normal (full) speed

>no tail call optimization anyway
>not optimizing for size -Os
you can waste hundreds of cycles while your processor is in a wait state for your slow ram doing nothing, best to condense the machine code

>>59069097
It wasn't a joke, and you've either misremembered or misunderstood the joke. The depressed state of the button was the slow mode.

>>59069197
The led was on when it was faster, and it was called turbo, obviously turbo=the faster/normal speed.

>>59068922
>>59068931
>>59068955
>>59069097
Turbo slowed shit down, but manufacturers would never, ever put a button on their products labeled "SLOW", hence the bullshit backwards naming.

I don't remember the button doing anything. I usually left it on, or sometimes just pushed it repeatedly like an autism.

>>59069259
>pushed it repeatedly
good way to crash whatever you were running

>shaving two clock cycles off an algorithm
>instead of programming in a cache coherent manner
>or using advanced CPU specific features

Say it with me now: Premature Optimization.

>>59068906
Before about 1995, CPUs and RAM used the same clock. They ran synchronously at speeds of 33MHz and below. In modern terms, all CPUs had a clock multiplier of 1x.

Turbo enabled a clock multiplier of 2x or 3x, so your CPU ran faster than its RAM. This broke some software, especially games.

>>59069259

>like an autism
> like

sure m8

>>59069325
Back then memory latency was much lower as measured in CPU cycles. Also caches were tiny, like 16KB. Programming for cache coherency didn't gain you much. Shaving two cycles off an inner loop did, because programs were severely CPU limited back then, not largely RAM limited like they are now.

It's much faster to use -march than -Ofast. Then again on 64bit binaries at you get SSE by force. Since there is no 64bit processor that doesn't support it, they don't even ask you if you want it, it will be used anyway.
It's the main reason 64bit binaries sometimes run faster when there is no reason they should.

>>59068906
Clock prescaler to match the frequency of older cpus.

>>59069339
Turbo buttons already existed in the 286 era, way before CPU clock multipliers.