Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:10:20 -0400 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Kernel/Compiler bug Message-ID: <CAPyFy2CCViaUifsO-1xTZ8k22Y5SH5n2Hauo5nU5hyQdHVx=og@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20141002075537.GU26076@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20141001031553.GA14360@gta.com> <CAFMmRNxAYcr8eEY0SJsX3zkRadjT29-mfsGcSTmG_Yx-Hidi6w@mail.gmail.com> <20141001134044.GA57022@gta.com> <FBB9E4C3-55B9-4917-9953-F8BC9AE43619@FreeBSD.org> <542C8C75.30007@FreeBSD.org> <20141002075537.GU26076@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 October 2014 03:55, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > The cost of the increased size for kernel stack is significant, even > on architectures with ample KVA. This must not be done just because > some non-default kernel settings cause stack overflow. If somebody > feels himself qualified enough to tune compiler options, it must > understand the consequences and do other required adjustments, > including kernel stack size tuning. I wonder if we should have a comment in kern.pre.mk, even if it's just an explicit notice that changing -O can have adverse effects. For better or worse it's a fairly common desire to try changing the kernel's -O. Of course, kern.pre.mk is not intended to accommodate user-facing changes. I suspect it's reasonably common for developers to grep '-O2' in sys/conf and discover where it's getting set though.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2CCViaUifsO-1xTZ8k22Y5SH5n2Hauo5nU5hyQdHVx=og>