Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:52:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> Cc: Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: buildworld failure Message-ID: <20030830024854.O15016@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <20030829153620.GM5234@starjuice.net> References: <20030829112512.H55433@volatile.chemikals.org> <20030829153620.GM5234@starjuice.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Okay, you philosophize while the rest of us follow the advice of the
> folks who have a good understanding of gcc's optimizer. :-)
Not to be disagreeable, but the gcc developers seem to think that -O2
should "always" produce better code, and "never" produce errors. This is
straight from the mouth of the husband of one of my co-workers, who
works for redhat hacking gcc.
If you have a reproducable case where correct C code produces bad
objects, or fails to compile using -O2, the gcc folks want to hear about
it.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030830024854.O15016>