From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 24 20:17:13 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2937716A4CE; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:17:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECF143D31; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:17:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2OKFaYr075675; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:15:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <42431F9D.5080906@samsco.org> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:14:21 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050218 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= References: <200503232122.01937.peter@wemm.org> <86acosykew.fsf@xps.des.no> In-Reply-To: <86acosykew.fsf@xps.des.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org cc: Peter Wemm Subject: Re: undefined reference to `memset' X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:17:13 -0000 Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Peter Wemm writes: > >>I wondered if it might be because of something like -O2 (don't do that) > > > Peter, stop that. The kernel builds and runs fine with -O2, and has > for a long time. > > DES No it doesn't. See the gymnastics that Bill Paul had to do recently in the iee80211 code to get around the insane inlining that gcc does with -O2. I'm not saying that gcc produces incorrect code, but I am saying that there is very strong evidence that it produces code that is incompatible with the restrictions inherent to the kernel, mainly that stack space is not infinite. Scott