Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 02:44:16 +0200 From: Marc "UBM" Bocklet <ubm@u-boot-man.de> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ACPI-CA 20040527 import Message-ID: <20040704024416.4b9463df.ubm@u-boot-man.de> In-Reply-To: <20040704001816.GA91326@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20040703231027.GA74329@xor.obsecurity.org> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0407031907020.21004-100000@pancho> <20040704001816.GA91326@xor.obsecurity.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 17:18:16 -0700 Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:14:31PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > Then either make -O2 mandatory for developers by putting it in > > > make.conf, or don't complain that developers aren't building with > > > your private special settings. > > > > Um, am I missing something, or would not putting -O2 in > > /etc/make.conf also suddenly start making ports with -O2 also? Has > > anyone ever tried this? > > COPTFLAGS is only used for kernel builds. Also, other platforms have > -O2 enabled by default for kernel builds, but not i386. Hmm, what I've been wondering for some time: Is there a perceivable performance gain by using -Ox instead of -O? Bye Marc -- "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" W.B. Yeats, The Second Cominghelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040704024416.4b9463df.ubm>