Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:57:27 -0600 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, sobomax@mail.ru Subject: Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4) Message-ID: <20000315155727.B44262@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20000315135205.C60742@dragon.nuxi.com>; from "David O'Brien" on Wed Mar 15 13:52:05 GMT 2000 References: <38CF48CF.59A100D7@altavista.net> <20000315105155.A9533@dan.emsphone.com> <20000315135205.C60742@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Mar 15), David O'Brien said: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:51:55AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote: > > I get it with -O2 (-Os implies -O2, so it's probably the same > > problem). > > Not quite. -0s ==> all the -O2 optimizations that do not increase > code size. -Os can also perform other optimizations not part of -O2 > that decrease code size. The -Os ==> -O2 only tells you how "risky" > in optimizing -Os is willing to be. Too risky, apparently :) Maxim: It looks like you've done quite a big of debugging already; can you get this bug to appear in a small piece of code? I'm sure the gcc developers would be able to fix the problem pretty quickly if it's easily reproducable. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@emsphone.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000315155727.B44262>