-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 09 April 2004 22.24, William Ballard wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 03:15:20PM -0500, elijah wright wrote:
> > in my experience compiling stuff with -O3 just means that people on > > other architectures (where GCC may do odd things) will eventually > > probably file bugs on your package that can be fixed by moving back > > to -O2. > > I know how tricky these issues are, but it sounds like the bugs > should more appropriately be filed against gcc on archs. where -O3 > breaks. Unless it's squirrelly and it's really not broken on those > architectures, but the *app* is somehow doing something wrong. Of course they are gcc bugs and should be duly reported. The question is: should package x (working with -O2, not working with -O3 - -fspecially-optimised) be buggy (often FTBFS or RC) because of a gcc problem when a really trivial workaround is available? I think not, especially in the usual case where the code is not performance critical at all. greetings - -- vbi - -- pub 1024D/92082481 2002-02-22 Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Key fingerprint = EFE3 96F4 18F5 8D65 8494 28FC 1438 5168 9208 2481 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: get my key from http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/92082481 iKcEARECAGcFAkB7j/FgGmh0dHA6Ly9mb3J0eXR3by5jaC9sZWdhbC9ncGcvZW1h aWwuMjAwMjA4MjI/dmVyc2lvbj0xLjUmbWQ1c3VtPTVkZmY4NjhkMTE4NDMyNzYw NzFiMjVlYjcwMDZkYTNlAAoJECqqZti935l6+aEAnRqsFfY4FeRZdZxSeyW4YT8R ID8OAKCvgBuxW00m8HuY1uRdQKhHHxmgBg== =Ifza -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
