From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 2 09:51:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5B837B401 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 09:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pop017.verizon.net (pop017pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.210]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A637943FBD for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com ([151.205.189.55]) by pop017.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP id <20030802165137.KXC27671.pop017.verizon.net@mac.com> for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 11:51:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3F2BEC09.4020900@mac.com> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:51:21 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: freebsd Questions 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> In-Reply-To: <20030801033640.GA16972@rot13.obsecurity.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at pop017.verizon.net from [151.205.189.55] at Sat, 2 Aug 2003 11:51:36 -0500 Subject: Re: buggy optimization levels... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:51:40 -0000 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