Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:09:43 +0100 (CET) From: Harti Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, stable@FreeBSD.org, sparc64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 Message-ID: <20060203090804.Q59587@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> In-Reply-To: <86fyn242w0.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <20060201165326.6E44E7302F@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <20060201180223.O52964@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <43E0F41C.5020907@samsco.org> <86fyn242w0.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: DS>Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> writes: DS>> I've been trying to reproduce this on my local hardware, but I can't DS>> trigger it. DS> DS>The ISP driver abuses the inline keyword. As I told mjacob earlier, DS>the extensive inlining not only breaks the build, but probably hurts DS>performance as well. DS> DS>(what gcc is complaining about, specifically, is that expanding calls DS>to inlined functions causes isp_target_notify() to grow by more than DS>100%) The interesting point is: why does it build on my real sparc (2-UII CPUs, 512MByte memory), but not on the tinderbox. Is there something about the crosscompiler that is different? harti
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060203090804.Q59587>