At 5:14 PM -0800 2000/3/24, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Err, this thread started with a patch to do that, which is what we're
> currently discussing.
Understood. I just didn't want to lose sight of the real goal of
the proposed patch, and what led up to the proposed patch.
--
These ar
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Brad Knowles wrote:
> Whatever the official position is, it should be documented in
> /etc/make.conf, and warnings should be exceptionally clear and the
> potential consequences laid out as being exceptionally dire, if one
> was so "adventurous" as to enable them by
At 4:29 PM -0800 2000/3/24, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>> `make world'. Optimization is in the default settings (-O).
>
> Fair enough - but how about platform-specific code generation settings,
> e.g. -march=pentium?
Whatever the official position is, it should be documented in
/etc/make.
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > Hmm. What is the correct way of compiling world with optimisation
> > or other compiler settings?
>
> `make world'. Optimization is in the default settings (-O).
Fair enough - but how about platform-specific code generation settings,
e.g. -march=pent
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> > Yes. make.conf shouldn't even hint that globally changing CFLAGS is
> > supported or good. Note that the suggested "most common use" has been
> > bogus since -pipe was added to the default settings in rev
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> Yes. make.conf shouldn't even hint that globally changing CFLAGS is
> supported or good. Note that the suggested "most common use" has been
> bogus since -pipe was added to the default settings in rev.1.31
> (1998/05/01) of sys.mk.
Hmm. What is the cor
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Any objections to the following?
>
> Index: make.conf
> ===
> RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/etc/defaults/make.conf,v
> retrieving revision 1.101
> diff -u -u -r1.101 make.conf
> --- make.conf 2
Hi folks,
%On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
%
%> Any objections to the following?
%
%I don't mind at all ... I was wondering about just taking out the ability
%to even USE -O2 in the compiler, but there're probably *some* non-kernel
%related reasons for using it, and we shouldn't block
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > Any objections to the following?
>
> I don't mind at all ... I was wondering about just taking out the ability
> to even USE -O2 in the compiler, but there're probably *some* non-kernel
> related reasons f
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Any objections to the following?
I don't mind at all ... I was wondering about just taking out the ability
to even USE -O2 in the compiler, but there're probably *some* non-kernel
related reasons for using it, and we shouldn't block it at that
point.
Any objections to the following?
Index: make.conf
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/etc/defaults/make.conf,v
retrieving revision 1.101
diff -u -u -r1.101 make.conf
--- make.conf 2000/03/22 00:49:20 1.101
+++ make.conf 2000/03/23 2
11 matches
Mail list logo
