From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 29 07:07:47 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA6616A51C for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 07:07:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx24.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B59913C4B7 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 07:07:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 11579 invoked by uid 399); 29 May 2007 07:07:46 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 May 2007 07:07:46 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <465BD140.20504@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 00:07:44 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070525) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Dupre References: <440b3e930705282241u44fa03a8gb0fedbb1617518df@mail.gmail.com> <465BC3A4.7030008@FreeBSD.org> <465BC507.1060902@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <465BC507.1060902@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ali Mashtizadeh , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Xorg port problem? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 07:07:48 -0000 Alex Dupre wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: >>> (Over 2GBs of RAM + Swap being used). It does this consistently when it >>> tries to compile xf86PciScan.c (hope thats the right file). >> May not be the answer you want to hear, but I built all the xorg stuff >> multiple times on -current systems both pre and post the gcc + symver >> + version bump eras, and didn't have the problems you're seeing. > > It's the well-known problem of new gcc 4.2 optimizations (bug). Simply > compile with -O0 instead of -O2. Not disputing your answer, but I'm curious. Why would it cause problems on some systems but not others? I haven't done anything with my cflags ... Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection