Charles Cox wrote:
>
> I would like to add that some of us who do a lot of numerically intensive
> programming, and that need to squeeze every last available cycle out of
> our CPU's would really appreciate having -O2 available for userland
> programs. To me, getting rid of the -O2+ switch would be like outlawing
> cars because someone had a really bad car accident. Just like driving a
> car, using gcc and the -O2 switch safely are the USER's
> responsibility. Having said this though, I do fully support having
> comments in make.conf, and documentation elsewhere that cautions against
> compiling a kernel with -O2.
Whatever. Remember, though, that compiling with -O2 *WILL* result in bad
code. It's not that someone had an accident. Is that the breaks don't
work one time out of five. Just wait your turn...
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them,
One IP to bring them all and in the zone bind them.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
