Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:59:31 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Stewart Morgan <stewart@nameless-uk.com> Cc: 'Gordon Tetlow' <gordont@gnf.org>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, 'Greg Lehey' <grog@lemis.com> Subject: Re: PANIC in FFS -- Please HELP! [resolved] Message-ID: <20010720125931.A91114@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <008301c11102$8ec2ea70$0f01000a@saturn>; from stewart@nameless-uk.com on Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 10:58:35AM %2B0100 References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107182000480.19368-100000@smtp.gnf.org> <008301c11102$8ec2ea70$0f01000a@saturn>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 10:58:35AM +0100, Stewart Morgan wrote: > *blush* For some reason, I keep forgetting that all -O* does is > to define the various -f* entries. *sigh* More coffee required :) > > Does anybody know which, if any, optimisations actually work > with _no_ ill effects? I guess the -march and -mcpu options are safe? Relatively safe, though there have been some claims of problems for various architecture optimisations. Never underestimate the number of bugs in gcc :-) > Otherwise, why are they in -stable. But the others? If you're worried, stick with -O. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7WI2iWry0BWjoQKURApRNAJ4ubcgWcCcIM+CGNMls8dPk7VVbGgCfb1zT AbyrCTxhmo9fBjfluvkxLlU= =w89T -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010720125931.A91114>