From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Oct 11 11:47:12 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id LAA14797
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:47:12 -0700
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (sri.MT.net [204.94.231.129])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA14792
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:47:08 -0700
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24481; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 12:49:17 -0600
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 12:49:17 -0600
From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199510111849.MAA24481@rocky.sri.MT.net>
To: michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au>
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: -fno-strength-reduce ?
In-Reply-To: <199510111348.XAA23413@asstdc.scgt.oz.au>
References: <199510111348.XAA23413@asstdc.scgt.oz.au>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> If it is a generic "gcc (2.63) is broken with optimisation" problem.

Yep.

> can/should the kernel be compiled with "-O2 -fno-strength-reduce" or are
> there other hidden "gotchas" that break it as well over and above the "-O"
> example given ?

Nope, it's a problem with all gcc releases since 2.4.5 with -O2
optimization.  It wasn't originally going to be fixed in 2.7.1, but
given the amount of time since the 2.7.0 release they may get time to
fix it. :)


Nate