Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 00:33:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: schuerge@wjpserver.CS.Uni-SB.DE, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Still kernel compilation failures Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907230030240.31457-100000@janus.syracuse.net> In-Reply-To: <199907230424.OAA01541@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >> > Put -O back in the COPTFLAGS.
> >>
> >> It works now. Is there any explaination why -O is required? :)
> >
> >Noone compiles without -O, so(/and) it's not supported. My take is
>
> It is supported, but someone broke it.
Since when? Every so often someone comes along (from a pool of maybe 5
people who _don't_ use -O) and complains about it being broken. If
anyone developing it actually used it, it wouldn't be broken. As it
stands, there's no good reason not to have -O.
>
> >that EGCS says "Hey, I am in optimization level foobar! I can optimize
> >for unused code. Hmm... that's unused, so...". Either that or its
> >debugging support is really uNFed up.
>
> -O works because optimisation removes an unused reference to a nonexistent
> variable. The variable once existed and was used. It still exists under
> a different name.
So I was right (in my way that totally denies any type of actual understanding
;)? You're the one to have delved deep into GCC :)
>
> Bruce
>
Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
green@FreeBSD.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) |
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9907230030240.31457-100000>