From owner-freebsd-stable Tue May 8 1: 5:11 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1585C37B422 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 01:05:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f488AYi01702; Tue, 8 May 2001 01:10:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200105080810.f488AYi01702@mass.dis.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: "Juha Saarinen" Cc: "Kris Kennaway" , "Nuno Teixeira" , "Guilherme Oliveira" , "FreeBSD Stable" Subject: Re: CFLAGS Optimization In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 May 2001 20:00:34 +1200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 01:10:34 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > :: The risk is the same in Linux; they both use gcc, and it's gcc which > :: has the optimizer bugs. It's more common to use absurd gcc > :: optimizations in the Linux community for some reason (perhaps they're > :: used to code misbehaving, so additional brokenness from the gcc > :: doesn't add much ;-) > :: > :: Just Say No. > > Hrrmm... that's tantamount to saying Linux and FreeBSD has a fundamentally > b0rken compiler. It would be more accurate to say that Linux and FreeBSD have a compiler with optimiser bugs, but that's widely known. Don't sound so surprised. 8) -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message