Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:09:09 +0100 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: mauzi@poli.hu Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] alt. C compiler Message-ID: <20000105100909.B63545@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001041924200.30369-100000@aquarius.poli.hu>; from Gergely EGERVARY on Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 07:32:13PM %2B0100 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001041924200.30369-100000@aquarius.poli.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001041924200.30369-100000@aquarius.poli.hu>, Gergely EGERVARY wrote: > I have just upgraded my system to -current w/egcs 2.95.2 and I have > several problems with it, especially when using optimizations (-O2 and > such) When your code breaks when using -O2 or higher, don't do that, use just -O! Almost all examples I've seen where people claimed newer gcc's broke their code are triggered by unclean C code that isn't strictly ANSI C conformant (also see the other thread about ieeefp and floating point exceptions). As far as I understand, the gcc people try to keep the -O option compatible in a way that it doesn't break code that didn't break in earlier versions of gcc. This is exactly the option you need, it's a service for you and you should use it unless you are absolutely sure your code is valid. There are examples of -O2 or higher breaking valid code, but they are much less common than implied. And such issues were in 2.7.x was well, that's the reason the base system is compiled with -O. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ BSD User Group Hamburg, Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000105100909.B63545>