From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 14 18:39:32 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F05E37B401
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lifesupport.shutdown.com (dsl092-048-059.sfo2.dsl.speakeasy.net
	[66.92.48.59])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F7943F85
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from llewelly@lifesupport.shutdown.com)
Received: (from llewelly@localhost)
	by lifesupport.shutdown.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id h6F1ZBV29806;
	Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>
References: <3F1322A9.8080805@mac.com>
From: LLeweLLyn Reese <llewelly@lifesupport.shutdown.com>
Date: 14 Jul 2003 18:35:10 -0700
In-Reply-To: <3F1322A9.8080805@mac.com>
Message-ID: <x3el0szi5t.fsf@lifesupport.shutdown.com>
Lines: 31
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: freebsd Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: buggy optimization levels...
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:39:32 -0000

Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> writes:

> Hi, all--
> 
> The "known bugs" section of the GCC info documentation lists 5 issues;
> "man gcc" lists none.  Can someone provide a test case for a bug
> involving "cc -O" versus "cc -O3" under FreeBSD 4-STABLE for the x86
> architecture?

You could probably find a few by searching the bug data base at:
    http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/

> 
> What is the preferred solution?  The Dragon book and other compiler
> references have a definition of safe versus unsafe "optimizations"; is
> the problem that -O3 enables something unsafe?

I believe that none of -O[0-3s] are intended to enable unsafe
    optimizations. (There are some optimization flags, which are *not*
    enabled by any -O opt, like -ffast-math, which are documented to
    be unsafe in some fashion or another; see
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.2.3/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#Optimize%20Options)

> Who is responsible
> (FreeBSD, GNU compiler team, others?) for changing the compiler
> defaults so that -Ox will not produce known-invalid results, for any x?
[snip]

If gcc produces invalid results or bad code at any optimization level,
    I think you should report it as a bug according to the
    instructions at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html