Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 08:39:59 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Tinderbox <tinderbox@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ia64/ia64 Message-ID: <20040829153959.GA22248@dhcp53.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20040829145919.GY30151@darkness.comp.waw.pl> References: <20040829091547.927B07303F@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <20040829143543.GX30151@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <20040829145603.GG23120@ip.net.ua> <20040829145919.GY30151@darkness.comp.waw.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 04:59:19PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > +> > > +> I believe it's -O2 (which is not in default CFLAGS). > > Nope, it was tested with -O2. I made such breakage before, I think, and > it was only exposed on non-i386 archs, AFAIR. Why? Where is the difference? In the compiler. Different code transformations at different times and to different extend can create different warnings. The uninitialized variable is probably the most affected warning due to this. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040829153959.GA22248>