Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:40:42 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, kris@obsecurity.org, sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 Message-ID: <43E4142A.4@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20060203.105305.71186162.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <8664nwrbp8.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060203102659.GA66445@xor.obsecurity.org> <861wykr9vx.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060203.105305.71186162.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh wrote: > From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) > 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=-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-term 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 that has the more experimental flags. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43E4142A.4>