Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:55:49 -0700 (MST) From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: scottl@samsco.org Cc: stable@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, harti@freebsd.org, kris@obsecurity.org, sparc64@freebsd.org, des@des.no Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 Message-ID: <20060203.215549.74746986.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <43E4142A.4@samsco.org> References: <861wykr9vx.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060203.105305.71186162.imp@bsdimp.com> <43E4142A.4@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:40:42 -0700 > Warner Losh wrote: > > From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav) > > Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 > > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:53:38 +0100 > > = > > = > >>Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes: > >> > >>>COPTFLAGS=3D-O -pipe according to the tinderbox logs. > >> > >>Hmm, yes, apparently it only uses -O2 on HEAD. > > = > > = > > Can we not have special flags for tinderbox builds? It make > > pre-commit testing a big pita. How about just -O on both head and = in > > RELENG_6? The kernel make files have special magic to disable the > > parts of -O2 that are known to be bad because tinderbox uses -O2, > > despite efforts in the past to stop the practice. > > = > > Warner > > = > > = > = > There is value in testing -O2, since enabling that is a good long-ter= m > goal. What might be nice is to run tinderboxes with all default > compiler settings, and then once or twice a week to a special run tha= t > has the more experimental flags. My point is that it is unreasonable to get bitched at for tinerbox breakages that don't show up when building lint because the tinderbox person is too stubborn to not use non-standard flags. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060203.215549.74746986.imp>