From owner-freebsd-ports  Mon Jan 22 23:15:27 1996
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id XAA07673
          for ports-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 23:15:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU (paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.34.47])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA07662
          Mon, 22 Jan 1996 23:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU (localhost.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA13917; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 23:15:15 -0800
From: Josh MacDonald <jmacd@cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-Id: <199601230715.XAA13917@paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
cc: jmacd@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org, jmacd@paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: mit-scheme compiles with -O6 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Jan 1996 04:21:42 PST."
             <199601171221.EAA02193@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> 
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 23:15:14 -0800
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> I know that's what the original source said, but do we really want to
> do this?  I've heard that beyond -O2, higher optimization levels will
> just introduce more bugs for negligible (or sometimes negative) speed
> improvement.
> 
> If you agree to drep this to -O or -O2, I will change it (there is a
> hunk in the patch that already contains the "-O6" part :).
> 
> Satoshi

I don't think it matters...  I'm sure -O2 is fine.  

-josh