Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:41:39 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> Cc: ohartman@klima.physik.uni-mainz.de, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ARCH flag in new make.conf Message-ID: <20010307014139.A27133@mollari.cthul.hu> In-Reply-To: <20010307013439I.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>; from jkh@osd.bsdi.com on Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:34:39AM -0800 References: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0103070915530.17134-100000@klima.physik.uni-mainz.de> <20010307013439I.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:34:39AM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > From: "Hartmann, O." <ohartman@klima.physik.uni-mainz.de> > Subject: ARCH flag in new make.conf > Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:30:33 +0100 (CET) > > > I'm really confused and surprised by the fact, that with the upcoming new > > FreeBSD 4.3 in its make.conf we can choose architectural parameters for the > > CPU architecture. And I will tell you why. > > It's not supposed to be set by the "general public" and failing to > note this was an error, thanks. I've just committed the following patch: No, I think you're overreacting significantly here -- there just isn't a large amount of evidence showing that -march=<...> produces bad code, and this is the first suggestion I've heard that it does so. In fact, David O'Brien has been very supportive of the CPUTYPE code so far, and he should know better than anyone which gcc optimizations are dangerous on FreeBSD (e.g. he was the one who added the nasty warnings for -O2 under alpha. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6pgJSWry0BWjoQKURAox6AJ9rS62bSIzjIDaTevpmTgg5Nlli9QCeOvza WdM+ZNJdlWq7UYI/jpAtu9k= =/WFV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010307014139.A27133>