From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 3 16:40:08 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2872916A4D3 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:40:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (CPE0050040655c8-CM00111ae02aac.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.194.102.143]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04B043D58 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:40:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6B5C8520B2; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:42:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:42:16 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: Kirk Strauser Message-ID: <20041103164216.GA56484@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20041102222000.GA65845@xor.obsecurity.org> <200411021736.21034.kirk@strauser.com> <20041102234821.GA76782@xor.obsecurity.org> <200411031036.17792.kirk@strauser.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200411031036.17792.kirk@strauser.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Ports are not ready for CFLAGS=-O2 in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:40:08 -0000 --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--