From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Feb  4 20:03:22 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: sparc64@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F9616A420;
	Sat,  4 Feb 2006 20:03:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no)
Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D898543D49;
	Sat,  4 Feb 2006 20:03:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no)
Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55AE2081;
	Sat,  4 Feb 2006 21:03:13 +0100 (CET)
X-Spam-Tests: AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO
X-Spam-Learn: ham
X-Spam-Score: -3.1/3.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on tim.des.no
Received: from xps.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180])
	by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67F02080;
	Sat,  4 Feb 2006 21:03:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 95FAE33C22; Sat,  4 Feb 2006 21:03:13 +0100 (CET)
To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
References: <861wykr9vx.fsf@xps.des.no>
	<20060203.105305.71186162.imp@bsdimp.com> <86bqxntixy.fsf@xps.des.no>
	<20060204.085134.44793895.imp@bsdimp.com>
From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=)
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:03:13 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20060204.085134.44793895.imp@bsdimp.com> (M. Warner Losh's
	message of "Sat, 04 Feb 2006 08:51:34 -0700 (MST)")
Message-ID: <86irruao3i.fsf@xps.des.no>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, kris@obsecurity.org, stable@freebsd.org,
	sparc64@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64
X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc <freebsd-sparc64.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-sparc64>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-sparc64-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-sparc64>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-sparc64-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-sparc64>,
	<mailto:freebsd-sparc64-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 20:03:22 -0000

"M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> writes:
> Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes:
> > As I have repeatedly pointed out in the past, -O2 catches more
> > bugs because it enables optimizations which require more extensive
> > coverage analysis.
> Then it should be the default, standard flag.

I wish.  Unfortunately, there is a very vocal minority which
systematically opposes this kind of change.

DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no