In the last episode (Aug 08), David O'Brien said:
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 08:01:10PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
sorry, but some time ago I read here that gcc -O2 breaks our
printf() in libc. I haven't find any assembler code in
/usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/vfprintf.c,
...
If someone
David O'Brien wrote:
If someone could find the small segment of code where the optimizer
screws up, and write a small program to demonstrate the problem, we
would have a good chance of it getting fixed.
Er, someone (Dan Lukes) has already done this. See PR 40209.
It looks like this PR is
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote:
Andrew Kolchoogin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
sorry, but some time ago I read here that gcc -O2 breaks our printf() in
libc. I haven't find any assembler code in /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/vfprintf.c,
as such, if some C compiler
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 08:01:10PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
sorry, but some time ago I read here that gcc -O2 breaks our printf() in
libc. I haven't find any assembler code in /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/vfprintf.c,
...
If someone could find the small segment of code where the optimizer
On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote:
Andrew Kolchoogin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
sorry, but some time ago I read here that gcc -O2 breaks our printf() in
libc. I haven't find any assembler code in /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/vfprintf.c,
as such, if some C compiler can't handle VALID
Andrew Kolchoogin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David,
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 12:39:55AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
The rest of the GCC using world can use -O2 on their code. We are the
only ones that have so much trouble with it. It is probably due to our
bugs, not GCC's.
sorry, but
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 04:20:53AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
I wouldn't trust -O2 for releases without lots of testing in -current
(and not updating the compiler after testing).
The rest of the GCC using world can use -O2 on their code. We are the
only ones that have so much trouble with it.
David,
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 12:39:55AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
The rest of the GCC using world can use -O2 on their code. We are the
only ones that have so much trouble with it. It is probably due to our
bugs, not GCC's.
sorry, but some time ago I read here that gcc -O2 breaks our
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
On 31-Jul-2002 Chris Knight wrote:
...
the mfsroot floppy contents were too large
...
the kern floppy contents were too large
...
the fixit floppy contents were too large
...
Oof. It's like our binaries are suddenly very bloated. Did
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 02:57:44AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
I'm surprised -Os [-falign...] isn't already the default for crunches.
-Os is -O2 except for those optimizations which bloat. We don't trust
-O2 and thus maybe should not -Os. Hopefully we have found all our bad
in-line ASM and -O2
In the last episode (Aug 01), David O'Brien said:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 02:57:44AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
I'm surprised -Os [-falign...] isn't already the default for
crunches.
-Os is -O2 except for those optimizations which bloat. We don't trust
-O2 and thus maybe should not -Os.
On 01-Aug-2002 Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
On 31-Jul-2002 Chris Knight wrote:
...
the mfsroot floppy contents were too large
...
the kern floppy contents were too large
...
the fixit floppy contents were too large
...
Oof. It's like our
Yup, it's been reported several times by various people and it seems
everyone
who can help is too busy to care.
This isn't fun anymore. :-(
--
Jerry Hicks
On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 06:18 AM, Chris Knight wrote:
Howdy,
As the snapshot manager at snapshots.jp.freebsd.org would be
On 31-Jul-2002 Chris Knight wrote:
Howdy,
As the snapshot manager at snapshots.jp.freebsd.org would be aware,
current's release building capability is woeful to say the least. A fair
bit of tidying up will need to be done for DP2.
I've managed to complete a successful release build of
Howdy,
-Original Message-
From: John Baldwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2002 23:12
To: Chris Knight
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Comments on Release Building for -current
[snip]
Oof. It's like our binaries are suddenly very
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:33:38AM -0400, W Gerald Hicks wrote:
Yup, it's been reported several times by various people and it seems
everyone
who can help is too busy to care.
This isn't fun anymore. :-(
Uhm, did I miss something? Where does this attitude come from? Did
you submit
Murray Stokely wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:33:38AM -0400, W Gerald Hicks wrote:
Yup, it's been reported several times by various people and it seems
everyone
who can help is too busy to care.
This isn't fun anymore. :-(
Uhm, did I miss something? Where does this attitude
17 matches
Mail list logo
