On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 08-Dec-00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I'm not a constraints expert either, but I noticed that when I try to
> > build a kernel WITHOUT any optimization, I get a failure in
> >
> > /usr/src/sys/i386/atomic.h .
>
> Compiling a kern
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not a constraints expert either, but I noticed that when I try to
> build a kernel WITHOUT any optimization, I get a failure in
>
> /usr/src/sys/i386/atomic.h .
>
> # make atomic.o
> cc -c -O0 -pipe -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs
> ...
On 08-Dec-00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I hit on it by accident (I normally compile with -O). That said, your
> claim that gcc with no optimization generates incorrect code is
> kind of counter-intuitive, wouldn't you say ?
I've seen it do weird things with -O0 (mostly with C++). :) It's jus
TED]>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 1:49 PM
Subject: RE: possibly related data point - (was) Re: Current Broken!
>
> On 08-Dec-00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I hit on it by accident (I normally compile with -O). That said,
your
> > claim that gcc with no optimizati
I hit on it by accident (I normally compile with -O). That said, your
claim that gcc with no optimization generates incorrect code is
kind of counter-intuitive, wouldn't you say ?
I think you missed my point, I was just illustrating that optimizer seems
to affect (in my case apparently negate) t
On 08-Dec-00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I'm not a constraints expert either, but I noticed that when I try to
> build a kernel WITHOUT any optimization, I get a failure in
>
> /usr/src/sys/i386/atomic.h .
Compiling a kernel with anything but -O for optimization is not supported.
John,
I'm not a constraints expert either, but I noticed that when I try to
build a kernel WITHOUT any optimization, I get a failure in
/usr/src/sys/i386/atomic.h .
# make atomic.o
cc -c -O0 -pipe -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arit
