From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 7 10:21:41 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C61916A4CE for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:21:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (CPE0050040655c8-CM00111ae02aac.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.199.47.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6106343D45 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:21:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 655535146E; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 02:21:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 02:21:40 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: "Jos? M. Fandi?o" Message-ID: <20050207102140.GA56842@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <42073FD8.5CCA7EC5@fadesa.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42073FD8.5CCA7EC5@fadesa.es> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 50% of packets lost only on local interfaces X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:21:41 -0000 --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 11:15:52AM +0100, Jos? M. Fandi?o wrote: > "Jos? M. Fandi?o" wrote: > >=20 > > Chris wrote: > > > > > > Have tested on 3 boxes. > >=20 > > yes, it's the intended operation and If I don't see it I don't > > believe it but it happens. I ever thought it would be possible. >=20 > Finally, I found the culprit: >=20 > CFLAGS=3D"" \ 100% of the transmited traffic is received > COPTFLAGS=3D"" /=20 >=20 > CFLAGS=3D -pipe \ 50% of the transmited traffic is received > COPTFLAGS=3D -pipe / That would be exceedingly strange, because the above two options are supposed to produce *no differences at all* with the code generation. I'd believe that -O and no -O could behave differently, although I don't know why you'd want to compile without -O. Kris --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCB0EzWry0BWjoQKURAvRwAKCrOZFPO5yl/I8jxI0FOHOFn/7TxgCgknfY fkxZGLXokZ/P/0jYvWTK87g= =JSVP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz--