Ok ok. If you guys want to go to -O2 *AFTER* this release, we can.
But with 4 days to the release we aren't changing it now.
-Matt
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Simon 'corecode' Schubert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>>
>> :> cc -Wall x.c -c -O2
>> :> x.c: In function 'fubar2':
>> :> x.c:16: warning: 'error' is used uninitialized in this function
>> :> :> (edit so *valuep is set to 0)
>>
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Why should -O2 break things and -O never break things? That doesn't
> seem obvious to me. I think all the breakages that happened in the last
> couple of years which were connected with optimization happened with -O,
> -O2 and -Os.
>
> There seems to b
:about a week ago I got a new 250GB disk for my laptop and reinstalled
:it with a huge hammer partition for /usr and /home.
:Until now I didn't have any issues. It just works fine.
:And the new features that hammer offers are great!
:A ufs file system check would have taken ages on a 200GB partiti
about a week ago I got a new 250GB disk for my laptop and reinstalled
it with a huge hammer partition for /usr and /home.
Until now I didn't have any issues. It just works fine.
And the new features that hammer offers are great!
A ufs file system check would have taken ages on a 200GB partition.
An
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 05:12:02PM +0800, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> > There seems to be a traditional, irrational fear of -O2 in the FreeBSD
> > community, which I can't explain. I've heard something about -O2 and inline
> > assembly, but that's probably old as well.
Like the horrible mess they d
On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Simon 'corecode' Schubert >>No,
> we will always stick to -O. GCC is a moving target too, even if
> >>-O2 works now there is a high chance it will break something in future
> >>GCC rolls.
> >
> > Why
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Simon 'corecode' Schubert >>No,
we will always stick to -O. GCC is a moving target too, even if
>>-O2 works now there is a high chance it will break something in future
>>GCC rolls.
>
> Why should -O2 break things and -O never break things? That doesn'
Matthew Dillon wrote:
:> cc -Wall x.c -c -O2
:> x.c: In function 'fubar2':
:> x.c:16: warning: 'error' is used uninitialized in this function
:>
:> (edit so *valuep is set to 0)
:>
:> cc -Wall x.c -c -O2
:> (no warning reported)
:
:So you need to go -O2? -O alone doesn
