Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:35:35 -0800 (PST) From: Charles Cox <cscox@stanford.edu> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Cc: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca>, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, Howard Leadmon <howardl@account.abs.net>, freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Compiler problems with -O2 (was Re: CVS Trouble, even under 4.0-RELEASE (alpha) HELP!) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0003231235100.29001-100000@cardinal0.Stanford.EDU> In-Reply-To: <14554.28033.439748.801349@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Charles Cox writes: > > I would like to add that some of us who do a lot of numerically intensive > > programming, and that need to squeeze every last available cycle out of > > our CPU's would really appreciate having -O2 available for userland > > programs. To me, getting rid of the -O2+ switch would be like outlawing > > cars because someone had a really bad car accident. Just like driving a > > car, using gcc and the -O2 switch safely are the USER's > > responsibility. Having said this though, I do fully support having > > comments in make.conf, and documentation elsewhere that cautions against > > compiling a kernel with -O2. > > > > CC > > You're missing the point almost entirely. FreeBSD's stock gcc -O2 is > demonstrably __broken__ on the alpha. You cannot trust code it > outputs. > > If you want to obtain results as quickly as possible & do not care if > they are correct, it would be much faster to read them from > /dev/zero. ;-) > Oh, well that's a little different then, isn't it? CC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.21.0003231235100.29001-100000>