Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:24:10 -0800 From: Ed Hall <edhall@screech.weirdnoise.com> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Cc: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Compiler problems with -O2 (was Re: CVS Trouble, even under 4.0-RELEASE (alpha) HELP!) Message-ID: <200003241724.JAA26268@screech.weirdnoise.com> In-Reply-To: Message from Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> of "Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:23:12 EST." <14554.28033.439748.801349@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>: : You're missing the point almost entirely. FreeBSD's stock gcc -O2 is : demonstrably __broken__ on the alpha. You cannot trust code it : outputs. Interesting. Do we have a test case we can pass along to the gcc folks? Any idea why the Linux folks seem to have better luck with "gcc -O2"? Do they configure gcc differently? (I'm willing to look into it if no one here knows.) I find it interesting that Howard Leadmon's problem with "gcc -O2" showed up as breakage in gcc itself--code that I would assume would be identical to what Linux uses. Specifically, the function check_newline() in /usr/src/contrib/gcc/c-lex.c would seem to be misbehaving. Linux builds gcc with -O2 by default, yet c-lex.c would seem to compile OK there. How are we different? -Ed 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?200003241724.JAA26268>