From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 27 14:47:35 2007
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 542)
	id 16D8616A469; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:47:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:47:34 +0000
From: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org>
To: Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net>
Message-ID: <20070627144734.GA49174@freebsd.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org>,
	Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net>, Harti Brandt <harti@FreeBSD.org>,
	Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org,
	cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
References: <200706261910.l5QJALb8093717@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20070627093610.GU2268@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
	<20070627113859.N64822@knop-beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>
	<20070627101148.GB44554@nagual.pp.ru>
	<46826A8C.8070908@delphij.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46826A8C.8070908@delphij.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org,
	src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Harti Brandt <harti@FreeBSD.org>,
	cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk sys.mk
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:47:35 -0000

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:47:56PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
> Nitpicking: I think -O1 implies no strict-aliasing.  So -O1 -pipe might
> be just Ok.

It is for easy change-back.

> Well, I'd say that all these changes looks scary to me.
> 
> Is there any code in our base system to trigger tree-vrp bug?  Do we
> still have some time to have gcc fixed and tested rather than using
> band-aid like this?  IMHO fixing gcc sounds better than "fix"ing sys.mk
> if time permits us to fix and test a vendor solution.

It is hard to find such cases because of the silent nature of the bug:
basically any array usage inside loop, with array size smaller than 
the loop iterations can trigger that (premature exit from the loop).
I think this case is general enough to worry at the system level.

There is no vendor solution right now and will not be until gcc 4.2.1
I doubt it will be available as separate patch because of complexity of tree 
vrp optimization.

This change will be backed out right after fixing gcc in any way.

-- 
http://ache.pp.ru/