From owner-cvs-all  Mon Apr 30 12:31:10 2001
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mail.clickarray.com (clickwall.clickarray.com [216.132.92.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B34E037B422; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from asami@cs.berkeley.edu)
Received: from vader.clickarray.com (nattedaddress.clickarray.com [10.2.1.199])
	by mail.clickarray.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8D3B95EF05; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from asami@localhost)
	by vader.clickarray.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f3UJV1223555;
	Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from asami@cs.berkeley.edu)
X-Authentication-Warning: vader.clickarray.com: asami set sender to asami@cs.berkeley.edu using -f
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
References: <200104300810.f3U8AGY60114@freefall.freebsd.org>
 <86elua4wf1.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>
 <20010430023347.A70094@xor.obsecurity.org> <3AED8AA7.79931098@DougBarton.net>
From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.7 - "Awazu")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 30 Apr 2001 12:31:01 -0700
In-Reply-To: <3AED8AA7.79931098@DougBarton.net>
 (Doug Barton's message of "Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:54:15 -0700")
Message-ID: <yfk8zki6v7u.fsf@vader.clickarray.com>
Lines: 26
User-Agent: T-gnus/6.14.5 (based on Gnus v5.8.7) (revision 06) SEMI/1.13.7
 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/20.7 (i386--freebsd) MULE/4.0
 =?ISO-2022-JP?B?KBskQjJWMWMbKEIp?=
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

 * 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