Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:47:38 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Cc: Alexander Kabaev <kan@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ZFS: i/o error - all block copies unavailable after upgrading to r225312 Message-ID: <4E6C75AA.7090208@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E6C71FA.50906@FreeBSD.org> References: <20110901223646.14b8aae8@o2.pl> <4E60DBBD.1040703@FreeBSD.org> <4E679D3D.1000007@FreeBSD.org> <4E6B1285.70508@FreeBSD.org> <4E6B1AD4.6080206@FreeBSD.org> <4E6B320A.4090606@FreeBSD.org> <20110910110310.GA6263@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4E6C71FA.50906@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 11/09/2011 11:31 Andriy Gapon said the following: > And I am actually wondering about -fno-unit-at-a-time option. > In my opinion this is an anti-optimization option and it can actually increase > a size of a final binary. In fact, it looks like the option was introduced to > boot2 in r132870 in the year 2004, way before GCC 4.X switch, and it was > introduced to avoid some optimizations that produced broken code. > I wonder if there is any reason to keep using that option now. > > At least the zfs boot code works fine without the option in my testing. And it looks like -fno-toplevel-reorder can be used instead of -fno-unit-at-a-time if we really depend on preserving the order: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/changes.html -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E6C75AA.7090208>