Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:36:40 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: freebsd Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: buggy optimization levels... Message-ID: <20030801033640.GA16972@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <3F29D0E1.30800@mac.com> References: <3F1322A9.8080805@mac.com> <20030731225137.GA15353@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3F29C399.6070108@mac.com> <20030801020842.GA16234@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3F29D0E1.30800@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 10:30:57PM -0400, Chuck Swiger wrote: > Fine. However, you don't _need_ to identify the reason why the kernel=20 > died, or solve the bug in global common expression elimination to solve t= he=20 > problem of compiling the system with "cc -O2" resulting in a buggy kernel= . =20 > If you determine that compiling with "cc -O -fgcse" results in failures,= =20 > one does: This is the trivial part (you don't even need to modify gcc, because all the optimizations turned on by -Ofoo are also available as individual -fblah options). As I've already said, once you have a self-contained test-case that demonstrates that a particular gcc optimization level generates broken code, the gcc people will fix it. Kris --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/KeBIWry0BWjoQKURAu+MAKDkIWkRf7V9QgyvUqQ3R9SDXqUH3gCg2t5E yMxmzLFnDJ3zvV/pDXI3fCA= =Z12W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030801033640.GA16972>