Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:46:22 +0700 From: =?UTF-8?B?IkMuIEJlcmdzdHLDtm0i?= <cbergstrom@pathscale.com> To: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] FreeBSD compiler extensions Message-ID: <4E12CF5E.20602@pathscale.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOfDtXPkR9FvpXB4EFj60OFnPR_skNTzu3LyLjCmmrs=HZXe_g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOfDtXPkR9FvpXB4EFj60OFnPR_skNTzu3LyLjCmmrs=HZXe_g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/ 5/11 03:27 PM, Robert Millan wrote: > This patch conditionalizes a pair of FreeBSD compiler extensions so > that its CFLAGS are only used on FreeBSD. Were I work we don't spend much time on compiling any kernel, but I'm superficially curious about the actual code which necessitates you needing these different flags. Is this for performance, correctness or both? (If you have any sort of reduced code example you can share that would be great) From a biased vendor perspective - less lock-in to a single compiler is usually a good thing. (The linux kernel may be the best example of what not to do.) Sorry I can't comment on the correctness of the patch. ./C
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E12CF5E.20602>