Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:11:04 -0800 From: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> To: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4) Message-ID: <38D08908.C629B55E@gorean.org> References: <38CF48CF.59A100D7@altavista.net> <8ap8qe$hvj$1@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > I've just upgraded my production server to the 4.0-RELEASE and found that
> > squid23 when compiled with -Os option dying with signal 11 on each attempt to
> > load page. When I recompiled it with -O fault disappeared.
>
> Which brings us back to the popular topic of which optimization
> levels are reliable.
>
> Building 5.0-CURRENT with "-Os -mpentium" failed for me with gas
> complaining (unknown opcode I think, but don't hold me to it). I
> went back to "-O -mpentium" and that worked fine. On another machine,
> "-O2 -mpentiumpro" worked, too.
Hmm... If I have a PII (Actually celeron 300A) or a PIII, which is
better, 'pentium' or 'pentiumpro'? I would think the latter, but I've
learned not to assume where gcc is concerned.
Also, I have heard conflicting reports as to whether compiling the
kernel/world with optimisations is a good thing. Anyone care to (re)open
that can of worms?
Thanks,
Doug
--
"While the future's there for anyone to change, still you know it
seems,
it would be easier sometimes to change the past"
- Jackson Browne, "Fountain of Sorrow"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38D08908.C629B55E>