Il giorno sab, 02/04/2011 alle 22.11 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto:
> Common errors:
I've been running my tinderbox with GCC 4.6 now, so I hope to help out
discovering the issue asap, but in the mean time I'd like to point out
that GCC 4.6 (a little more than others, afaict) could cause ./configure
Branko Badrljica schrieb:
> 2. Is there any info on gcc version that will support -march=Bulldozer ?
> I have googled a couple of gcc-related posts about optimizing for this
> CPU architecture intricacies and I have hoped to see support for it in
> 4.6... Is this stuff still in early development or
On 03. 04. 2011 16:04, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:32 Duncan wrote:
>>> Ryan Hill posted on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:11:12 -0600 as excerpted:
You may also want to test your packages with the new -Ofast option to
be sur
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:32 Duncan wrote:
>> Ryan Hill posted on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:11:12 -0600 as excerpted:
>>> You may also want to test your packages with the new -Ofast option to
>>> be sure it doesn't have any hardcoded assumptions about -O
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:50:32 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Ryan Hill posted on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:11:12 -0600 as excerpted:
>
> > You may also want to test your packages with the new -Ofast option to
> > be sure it doesn't have any hardcoded assumptions about -O flags.
>
Ryan Hill posted on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:11:12 -0600 as excerpted:
> You may also want to test your packages with the new -Ofast option to
> be sure it doesn't have any hardcoded assumptions about -O flags.
The release description I've read for -Ofast says it includes -fast-math,
among other
