Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:52:58 -0500 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to not use OPTIMIZED_FLAGS properly Message-ID: <AANLkTikf5YmAmvKAAERiifW%2BeEFrxW9o9-2jxyXQxnn%2B@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D5052A9.9000009@yandex.ru> References: <AANLkTikgqxBoTmvek0hHmbXtyeWCAKyJCHScGvgZY4x-@mail.gmail.com> <4D5052A9.9000009@yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/7/11, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru> wrote: ... > Yes. I get it wrong what Konstantin and portlint are said. Sorry. > CFLAGS=-O0 out of CONFIGURE_ENV works just fine. Thanks. Note that CFLAGS=-O0 is (even) more restrictive than CFLAGS+=-O0 -- the latter just overrides the -On setting for n > 0, while the former also overrides all other user flags. Generally speaking, the latter should be preferred, as part of our attempt to honor user-defined CFLAGS. ... >> This seems pessimistic, by the way. Have you tried adding other >> compiler flags, like those to control the compiler's memory usage? Or >> using another compiler via USE_GCC, or patching the source code? ... > Yes, i tried different flags that affect gcc memory usage, but w/o any > success. I'm actually started from patching source code - removing > optimization flags from distribution Makefiles. That's a start. But I think that this needs more investigation, beginning with the code that causes the base system compiler to become a hog. b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikf5YmAmvKAAERiifW%2BeEFrxW9o9-2jxyXQxnn%2B>