From owner-cvs-all Sun Jul 28 4:44:32 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CBA637B401 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 04:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail17.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.217]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9326543E4A for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 04:44:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 29932 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2002 11:44:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail17.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 28 Jul 2002 11:44:21 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (laptop.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.4]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6SBiLuR047371; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 07:44:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20020727204350.A74830@hub.freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 07:44:28 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: obrien@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.cpu.mk Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 28-Jul-2002 David O'Brien wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 06:30:59PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> > Revision Changes Path >> > 1.14 +10 -12 src/share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk >> >> I'm currently testing some further changes that define NO_CPU_CFLAGS for >> BMAKE, TMAKE, and XMAKE to handle bootstrapping issues and use > > My guess is because GCC 3.1 handles more types than GCC 2.93. Please > make the use of NO_CPU_CFLAGS conditional on either __FreeBSD_cc_version > or _FreeBSD_version. Yes. > All new bootstrapping warts should have an "expire date". Here's the thing, this is just for building throw-away tools, why go to the extra effort to optimize temporary binaries? As long as the final binaries built by buildworld are right that's what really matters. Is it really worth the extra effort to try and get this right? -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message