From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 29 08:41:42 2003 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 6170616A4BF for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2003 08:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.trigger.net (ns1.trigger.net [199.166.206.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E71243FE1 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2003 08:41:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mikej@trigger.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.trigger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C05D1238F2; Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mike (wettoast.org [199.166.206.19]) by mx1.trigger.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C9CE1238F1; Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:41:12 -0400 (EDT) From: "Mike Jakubik" To: "Sheldon Hearn" Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:41:38 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20030829153620.GM5234@starjuice.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS cc: Current Subject: RE: buildworld failure 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: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:41:42 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Sheldon Hearn > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:36 AM > To: Mike Jakubik > Cc: Current > Subject: Re: buildworld failure > > > On (2003/08/29 11:30), Mike Jakubik wrote: > > > Why should I have to turn off all my optimization options when building > > world? > > Because it's not working? Mind you, it's only -O2 that you're > recommended to turn off; -O works fine. Yes, I can see that its not working. But this is a solution to the cause, not the problem. Shouldn't this be fixed? > > This shouldn't be like that. 4.x always compiled fine with -O2 and > > CPU options. > > Okay, you philosophize while the rest of us follow the advice of the > folks who have a good understanding of gcc's optimizer. :-) Are you saying this is a bug in GCC and not the PAM code?