From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jun 14 20:57:34 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA23617
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA23612
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA10922; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Serge A. Babkin" <babkin@hq.icb.chel.su>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: C optimizer bug ? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 15 Jun 1997 08:07:46 +0600."
             <199706150207.IAA22124@hq.icb.chel.su> 
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:55:49 -0700
Message-ID: <10918.866346949@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>I was too lazy to do this but if it's going to give any effect
>I can do it.

Well, as I said, what you've done so far will generate *no* effect, so
look at this as the only option if causing an effect is what you have
in mind. :)

> There is at least one useful point: should the optimizer be used for
> kernel ? Indeed I got the first bad experience with optimizers

Yes, it should be.  -O6 (ala Linux) is overkill, of course, but -O
should always generate working code regardless of the context.

					Jordan