Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:57:14 +0700 (NOVST) From: nnd@mail.nsk.ru To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel broken? (pcm) Message-ID: <199910120257.JAA80657@wint.itfs.nsk.su> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910112140430.73636-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910112140430.73636-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com> Bill Fumerola <billf@jade.chc-chimes.com> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 nnd@mail.nsk.ru wrote: > >> In <199910111931.VAA52411@work.net.local> A.Leidinger@wjpserver.cs.uni-sb.de wrote: >> Such an errors results from (uncommented) kernel option >> >> #makeoptions CONF_CFLAGS=-fno-builtin > > We have enough breakages with the _documented_ kernel options that we > don't need to go hunting down oddities. :> Does it mean that I throw away my PR with patches to the 'newpcm' files which add 'abs' definition and therefore make it possible to make kernel with makeoptions CONF_CFLAGS=-fno-builtin ? P.S. It seems to me that this option (or its absent) can severely influence kernel run time efficience (not in the 'abs' case, of course ;-). N.Dudorov To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199910120257.JAA80657>