Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:51:21 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: freebsd Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: buggy optimization levels... Message-ID: <3F2BEC09.4020900@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20030801033640.GA16972@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <3F1322A9.8080805@mac.com> <20030731225137.GA15353@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3F29C399.6070108@mac.com> <20030801020842.GA16234@rot13.obsecurity.org> <3F29D0E1.30800@mac.com> <20030801033640.GA16972@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote: [ ... ] > 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). Indeed. If you've forgotten, I quoted the section of the gcc source code which indicates which individual -fblah options are enabled at -O1, -O2, -O3. > 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. Yes, I hope and believe they would. If you've also forgotten the origin of this thread, it was: | The "known bugs" section of the GCC info documentation lists 5 issues; "man | gcc" lists none. Can someone provide a test case for a bug involving "cc -O" | versus "cc -O3" under FreeBSD 4-STABLE for the x86 architecture? One might (reasonably and correctly) conclude that I was asking for examples of such test-cases. -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F2BEC09.4020900>