Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:52:07 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re: Different gcc optimisations cause IP packet CRC problems Message-ID: <20001211205207.A15479@student.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <20001211111434.A98131@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@freebsd.org on Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:14:35AM -0800 References: <20001211103638.A21163@peitho.fxp.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012111544260.36265-100000@plato.salford.ac.uk> <20001211111434.A98131@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 11:14:35AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 03:45:02PM +0000, Mark Powell wrote: > > > No, but you may want to review the mailing list archives since GCC > > > optimization problems have been rehash many times (see also the notes > > > in /etc/defaults/make.conf WRT optimization). > > > > I hadn't seen those comments. I didn't think gcc could be *that* broken. > > Compiling a kernel is *very* demanding on a C compiler. Linux still uses > 2.7.2.3 for their kernel compiler (someone correct me if this is not > still the case). Optimization is a hard science. I don't think anybody AFAIK Linux doesn't need 2.7.2.3 anymore. The reason they needed it for kernel compiling for quite some time was , IIRC, that they had some bad code which happened to work with 2.7.2.3 but didn't work with a later, more strict, version of gcc. > has ever guarenteed 100% correct code with -O2. But if you > can provide a test case showing the optimizer bug, the GCC developers > will fix it. > -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001211205207.A15479>