From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Aug 30 02:52:11 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 E1CF216A4BF
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD2143FE5
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org)
Received: from master.dougb.net
	(12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com[12.234.22.23](untrusted sender))
	by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP
	id <20030830095210011008o8pae>; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:52:10 +0000
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org>
To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030829153620.GM5234@starjuice.net>
Message-ID: <20030830024854.O15016@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
References: <20030829112512.H55433@volatile.chemikals.org>
	<20030829153620.GM5234@starjuice.net>
Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/
X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: Mike Jakubik <mikej@trigger.net>
cc: Current <current@freebsd.org>
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
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:52:12 -0000

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