Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:35:43 -0400 (EDT) From: mi@aldan.algebra.com To: wilko@freebsd.org Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Recommended compilation optimizations Message-ID: <200007242135.RAA35319@misha.privatelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <20000724232237.C1105@freebie.demon.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24 Jul, Wilko Bulte wrote: = On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:42:05PM -0400, mi@aldan.algebra.com wrote: = > On 24 Jul, David O'Brien wrote: = > = On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:29:11PM -0400, mi@aldan.algebra.com wrote: = > = > Instead of encouraging bug-reports, the attitude has so far = > = > been: "well, if you use high optimization -- you are on your = > = > own", = > = = > = But reports are of course welcomed. The attituded is for those = > = that want working binaries vs. setting up an environment to test = > = bugs. = > = > Please, allow me to one more time restate my point before the = > audience gets bored. I think, the developers should be using the = > higher = = ^^--- make that the gcc developers.. = = AFAIK the FreeBSD project tries to take gcc & friends as-is as much as = possible. As I've indicated a couple of times, I personally found an optimization bug non-reproduceable on Linux (Mandrake). I believe linux kernel is, by default, being built with high optimizations and linux machines don't fall all over because of that. This all suggests, that there are FreeBSD specific issues with GCC. So ``make that all developers'' -- anyone who can construct a meaningful bug-report should be using the high optimization. When such bug-reports are submitted, they need to get serious attention, especially, when there is evidence, the bug is FreeBSD specific. -mi 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?200007242135.RAA35319>