Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:42:16 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Ports are not ready for CFLAGS=-O2 in 6.0 Message-ID: <20041103164216.GA56484@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200411031036.17792.kirk@strauser.com> References: <20041102222000.GA65845@xor.obsecurity.org> <200411021736.21034.kirk@strauser.com> <20041102234821.GA76782@xor.obsecurity.org> <200411031036.17792.kirk@strauser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 10:36:14AM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote: > On Tuesday 02 November 2004 17:48, Kris Kennaway wrote: >=20 > > Don't know, perhaps they don't care about the fraction of ports that > > don't work properly since the rest of them have such eleet > > optimization. >=20 > On the technical end of things, what exactly is it that causes problems w= ith=20 > higher-level optimizations? Are they due to bugs in GCC, or obfuscated= =20 > code that can be interpreted several ways? Sometimes GCC bugs, but also incorrect C code in a lot of cases (that's how I came up with the number of 350 ports; those are the ports that emit a certain warning about probable bugs when compiled with -O2). Kris --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBiQpoWry0BWjoQKURAuNCAKDe5iD7hZlUGzVWAXKnTzg1NHBJ7wCgx67m BQRX5RAKcLmpMGk46huLes4= =1cYH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041103164216.GA56484>