Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 03:10:01 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Juha Saarinen <juha@saarinen.org> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com>, dmmiller@cvzoom.net, msmith@FreeBSD.ORG, kris@obsecurity.org, nuno.mailinglists@pt-quorum.com, guilherme@nortenet.pt, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CFLAGS Optimization Message-ID: <20010508031001.A91590@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <KPECIILENDDLPCNIMLOFCENOCDAA.juha@saarinen.org>; from juha@saarinen.org on Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:02:31PM %2B1200 References: <20010508012916Q.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <KPECIILENDDLPCNIMLOFCENOCDAA.juha@saarinen.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--gKMricLos+KVdGMg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:02:31PM +1200, Juha Saarinen wrote: > Yes, but you must agree that this is a poorly documented area. If you look > at the GCC documentation, it says that "optflag -x produces better code f= or > processor/architecture Y". It's not so easy for people to work out which > bits of the GCC documentation are bogus and which are not. It's well documented in /etc/defaults/make.conf # CFLAGS controls the compiler settings used when compiling C code. # Note that optimization settings above -O (-O2, ...) are not recommended # or supported for compiling the world or the kernel - please revert any # nonstandard optimization settings to "-O" before submitting bug reports # to the developers. # Note also that at this time the -O2 setting is known to produce BROKEN # CODE on the Alpha platform. > If GCC optimisations are unequivocally bad, ie. not useful in any sense of > the word, it might be an idea to patch the FreeBSD GCC so that it's not > possible to use any optflags. As already stated several times, they're not unequivocally bad; they're in fact very useful if used in controlled circumstances, i.e. where you test that the thing you're compiling still works as it should. They're bad when used unequivocally. > :: The next place this subject usually goes is "why don't we use > :: something other than gcc?" Any and all actual attempts to do so is > :: left as an exercise for the reader. Like riding a unicycle, it's not > :: as easy as it looks. >=20 > Well, I never found riding a unicycle that hard, but I guess it's an > individual experience and all that. ;-) >=20 > It wouldn't hurt, I don't think, to have an alternative to GCC. *sigh* Kris --gKMricLos+KVdGMg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE698X4Wry0BWjoQKURApSQAJ9jHSxJj/O+MazyqLNNYK0baX4WwwCguhXT YdawoXzeI/3qVKZ0fqBFgP4= =/WWn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gKMricLos+KVdGMg-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010508031001.A91590>