Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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-alpha" 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>