> > You're asking the compiler to "pull out all the stops" to algorithmically > > optimize code the programmer clearly did not intend for such optimization. > > The programmer is [supposed to be] intelligent, the compiler is not. And, > > as I'm sure we've all seen, some programmers abuse the language trying to > > do their own "optimizations". That's why new version of the compiler > > sometimes will not work with some coding practices. For example, "Please > > note the warning under -fgcse about invoking -O2 on programs that use > > computed gotos." > > > > Paul, > > whilst I agree that increasing optimization does sometimes lead to > problems, I think you are perhaps missing something important: the > flags used by the package developer.
You're right. I was trying to address the more general proposition of adding optimizations when building. IMO, it's generally not a good idea. -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
