Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 14:33:53 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: ru@FreeBSD.org Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, harti@FreeBSD.org, sparc64@FreeBSD.org, stable@FreeBSD.org, kris@obsecurity.org Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 Message-ID: <20060204.143353.109955782.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20060204211357.GD7604@ip.net.ua> References: <20060204.085134.44793895.imp@bsdimp.com> <86irruao3i.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060204211357.GD7604@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20060204211357.GD7604@ip.net.ua>
Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:03:13PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
: > "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> writes:
: > > Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <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.
: >
: What breakage do you mean if tinderboxes are run without it and
: usually compile successfully? :-)
:
: I mean, I don't see a reason not to remove -fno-strict-aliasing
: from the kernel builds now. Perhaps it's still needed for some
: platforms that aren't covered by tinderbox, not sure... Can be
: easily checked with "make universe".
There's a dozen or two files that will fail to compile -O2 w/o it
spread through the tree.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060204.143353.109955782.imp>