From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 20 17:26:51 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C3D16A46C for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:26:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [IPv6:2001:1b20:1:3::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E793F13C47E for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:26:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lBKHQeUS068644; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:26:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id lBKHQcOd068643; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:26:38 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:26:38 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200712201726.lBKHQcOd068643@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, jhs@berklix.org In-Reply-To: <200712181108.lBIB8rAL090380@fire.js.berklix.net> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-stable User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/6.2-STABLE-20070808 (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:26:48 +0100 (CET) Cc: Subject: Re: 7.0BETA4 /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc_int Thrashes X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, jhs@berklix.org List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:26:51 -0000 Julian Stacey wrote: > Has 7.0-BETA4 perhaps wrongly got a -pipe in the .mk macros ? It was added 9 years 7 months ago my JKH (see the CVS repository, src/share/mk/sys.mk rev 1.31). He wrote: "Add -pipe to default CFLAGS. The optimization it provides is cheap and does not require any special action on the part of the user to take advantage of it." It might not be that "cheap" anymore with gcc 4.2 being the default compiler now, known to be somewhat more RAM- hungry than its predecessors. However, I still think that -pipe should be kept on by default, because it will help on the vast majority of machines. Old machines with very little RAM need some special-tuning anyway, so it's reasonable to give them special CFLAGS that don't contain -pipe. (Apart from that I would recommend to use a faster and sufficiently RAM-equipped machine for building and then perform only the install on the smaller machine, or install directly on its harddisk by plugging it into the faster machine temporarily. That's how I used to update an old 486SX notebook that had only 4 MB RAM and no network except SLIP/PLIP.) YMMV, of course. Please take the above only as my personal opinion on the matter. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "Clear perl code is better than unclear awk code; but NOTHING comes close to unclear perl code" (taken from comp.lang.awk FAQ)