Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:35:37 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> Cc: "David E. O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org>, <cvs-committers@freebsd.org>, <cvs-all@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang/gcc31 Makefile distinfo Message-ID: <200208021735.37278.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0208022219150.21854-100000@pulcherrima.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> References: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0208022219150.21854-100000@pulcherrima.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 02 August 2002 04:21 pm, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: = On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Mikhail Teterin wrote: = > stage2/xgcc -Bstage2/ -B/opt/i386-portbld-freebsd5.0/bin/ -c -DIN_GCC -g = > -O2 -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings [...] = > [...] = > Mmm, it builds with "-g -O2" instead of the make.conf's CFLAGS. Is = > that intentional, or is it simply too hard to fight? = = I suppose intentional, in that this is how GCC is supposed to build = itself, and in that this is the only exhaustively tested way of = building GCC, by dozens (if not hundreds) of regular testers. This certainly would not be the policy applied to any other port I've heard of... Some of them, actually, go try very hard to use the specified CFLAGS. Also, the -O2 was proven dangerous on more than one occasion before. Is it considered safe now? = It would be easy to override, though. I'd welcome that. If you insist, the use of GNU's "-g -O2" can be left as an option. -mi = Gerald -- Как, Вы разве без шпаги пришли? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208021735.37278.mi%2Bmx>