Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 14:12:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Bert Driehuis <driehuis@playbeing.org> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Trouble with 4.3-RELEASE compiler Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.21.0104281356560.6127-100000@c1111.nl.compuware.com> In-Reply-To: <3AEA96F8.C217C8BF@cvzoom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Donn Miller wrote: > If > you want to make a program run faster, you've got to write implement > better algorithms, and its as simple as that. Beyond that, you'll just > have to get faster HW. This in general is true, but back in the days when GCC was a good C compiler that also had a C++ like frontend, -O2 was safe, and if you saw bugs at -O2, 99 out of a hundred times it was an actual bug in the code that was exposed by the optimisation (usually an uninitialised variable). > I think most compilers have optimization bugs, > because you use them with the understanding that they generate > faster/smaller code at the expense of potential side effects. There is no excuse for generating buggy code. The compiler has to take valid C and produce object code that faithfully implements what the source code describes. If the compiler does not do that, it's broken. BSD/OS for the longest time shipped with two C compilers: gcc 1.42 and gcc 2.x, and to this date, BSD/OS ships with a patched gcc in order to take some broken optimisations out. Cheers, -- Bert -- Bert Driehuis -- driehuis@playbeing.org -- +31-20-3116119 If the only tool you've got is an axe, every problem looks like fun! 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?Pine.BSI.4.21.0104281356560.6127-100000>