Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 16:20:50 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/examples/etc make.conf Message-ID: <20040704232050.GA90994@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20040704205648.GA1617@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200407030941.i639fwt8078389@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040704032139.GA93138@VARK.homeunix.com> <20040704051607.GA78676@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040704205648.GA1617@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 01:56:48PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:16:07PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 08:21:39PM -0700, David Schultz wrote: > > > FWIW, I've been compiling most things with -O2 for a while (to > > > find -O2 bugs, not for speed) and haven't noticed many problems. > > > The only significant one I know of is that -O2 breaks > > > floating-point exceptions in libm because gcc doesn't support the > > > FENV_ACCESS pragma. I think for some routines like rint(3), it > > > may even give the wrong answer due to incorrect optimizations, but > > > I'd have to check that again. > > >=20 > > > AFAIK, the necessary functionality to make gcc's optimizer treat > > > floating-point code in a sane manner isn't on the horizon, so > > > maybe -O2 should be automatically turned off while compiling libm > > > (and perhaps libalias as well). That would make it more > > > easily justifiable to make -O2 the default at some future point. > >=20 > > I don't think we can ever make it the default since there's likely to > > be a lot of software in ports that would be broken too. >=20 > 99% of the ports that "may break" build with -O2 on Linux (as -O2 is > their default). What is different about us vs. Linux for these ports? We care about not introducing instability into our packages? If we have >=3D2 -O2 bugs in our source tree alone, why should you think that none of the 11000 ports are affected? Kris --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFA6JDSWry0BWjoQKURAsS3AKDk7gEo4Kcah4OGuXVJ5PSOeDFjTACgiaHV 8gCPZrAZ6XtdImp7HOhORFk= =YIU8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040704232050.GA90994>