On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >> > Put -O back in the COPTFLAGS.
> >>
> >> It works now. Is there any explaination why -O is required? :)
> >
> >Noone compiles without -O, so(/and) it's not supported. My take is
>
> It is supported, but someone broke it.
Since when? Every so often someone comes along (from a pool of maybe 5
people who _don't_ use -O) and complains about it being broken. If
anyone developing it actually used it, it wouldn't be broken. As it
stands, there's no good reason not to have -O.
>
> >that EGCS says "Hey, I am in optimization level foobar! I can optimize
> >for unused code. Hmm... that's unused, so...". Either that or its
> >debugging support is really uNFed up.
>
> -O works because optimisation removes an unused reference to a nonexistent
> variable. The variable once existed and was used. It still exists under
> a different name.
So I was right (in my way that totally denies any type of actual understanding
;)? You're the one to have delved deep into GCC :)
>
> Bruce
>
Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) |
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
