Date: 30 Apr 2001 12:31:01 -0700 From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Akinori MUSHA <knu@iDaemons.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11-toolkits/fox/files patch-ad Message-ID: <yfk8zki6v7u.fsf@vader.clickarray.com> In-Reply-To: <3AED8AA7.79931098@DougBarton.net> (Doug Barton's message of "Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:54:15 -0700") References: <200104300810.f3U8AGY60114@freefall.freebsd.org> <86elua4wf1.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> <20010430023347.A70094@xor.obsecurity.org> <3AED8AA7.79931098@DougBarton.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:54:15 -0700 * From: Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net> * Kris Kennaway wrote: * > Well, the policy from all quarters of the project is that everything * > over -O is dangerous and is known to break. * * . . . unless the code has been tested with further optimizations. I tend On what? Don't forget that we're talking about two different architectures and one or two versions of compilers for the two branches we support (4-stable and 5-current). :) I tend to agree with Kris -- unless there is a very good reason to do so, we shouldn't allow optimizations higher than what the project supports (-O). Of course, if the maintainer has taken the effort to test a particular set of optimization flag on a particular arch/compiler combination, they are free to enable it with an accompanying conspicuous comment so they won't be accidentally "cleaned up". -PW To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?yfk8zki6v7u.fsf>