From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Mar 7 10:57:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (earth-nat-cw.backplane.com [208.161.114.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5469F37B719 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:57:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@earth.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.2/8.9.3) id f27Iuxl71513; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:56:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:56:59 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200103071856.f27Iuxl71513@earth.backplane.com> To: Glen Gross Cc: Steven Farmer , "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG" Subject: Re: RE: ARCH flag in new make.conf References: <01C0A6F1.C26E6DC0.ggross@symark.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :The impression I get is that when people use it, they usually end up :complaining to the list about something not working, and then it is :not immediately obvious that broken optimization routines are the problem. On :the basis of a dialogue I read about 6 months ago on this list, :I decided to avoid it like the plague until the current version of gcc :stabilizes somewhat. Does that make sense, or am I being overly cautious? I think you are being entirely sensible. I used to use -O2 all the time, but as of about a year ago it started breaking things (starting with the FreeBSD kernel). Then I started using -Os because I like the code compaction it produced, but that started breaking the kernel too. Now I just use -O (and -O had damn well better continue to work because my static inlines will not compile properly without it!). Now I just don't care any more, except for the 0.1% of my personal code that I need to optimize, and most of that I optimize simply by playing around with the C a little or changing an algorithm out or something like that. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message