Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 22:43:23 +0200 From: Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: ACPI-CA 20040527 import Message-ID: <20040703204323.GA95168@fasolt.home.paeps.cx> In-Reply-To: <xzphdsorgjx.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <200407020815.i628F5sp016504@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040702100347.GA9202@laptop.6bone.nl> <xzpd63eipfx.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040702161947.GI779@laptop.6bone.nl> <xzpk6xms6ve.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040702215054.GA54100@xor.obsecurity.org> <xzphdsorgjx.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2004-07-03 22:17:54 (+0200), Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes:
> > It's a bit disingenuous to criticize someone for not building with -O2 and
> > then noting in the next email that there's a known bug with -O2.
>
> No, it isn't. The bug is there because we've been shoving that kind of
> thing under the carpet for years, and the best way to stop doing that is to
> make -O2 mandatory for developers.
Would it make sense to make it the default in -current then?
- Philip
--
Philip Paeps Please don't CC me, I am
subscribed to the list.
On a beautiful day like this it's hard to believe anyone
can be unhappy -- but we will work on it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040703204323.GA95168>