From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Jul 20 17:15:55 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (cust-P5-R6-162.POOL.ESR.SJO.wwc.com [206.112.109.162]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE2C37B401 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:15:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6L0Frd01224; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:15:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200107210015.f6L0Frd01224@mass.dis.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: stewart@nameless-uk.com Cc: "'Gordon Tetlow'" , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, "'Greg Lehey'" Subject: Re: PANIC in FFS -- Please HELP! [resolved] In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:58:35 BST." <008301c11102$8ec2ea70$0f01000a@saturn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:15:52 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Does anybody know which, if any, optimisations actually work > with _no_ ill effects? I guess the -march and -mcpu options are safe? > Otherwise, why are they in -stable. But the others? They're in -stable because they're part of the toolchain. Like 'rm -rf /' they're not necessarily smart to *use*. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message