Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:20:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: -O6/-fstrength-reduce for kernel (Was: Re: changes in -current...) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951201141723.18665A-100000@hub.org> In-Reply-To: <199512011252.XAA17404@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Bruce Evans wrote: > > the other thing I'm trying differently is using -O6 instead of > >-O, but ... that shouldn't hurt anything, should it? > > Yes, -O2 gives -fstrength-reduce which is broken at least in gcc-2.6.3 > through gcc-2.7.1. > Okay, so *that* is where that -f<> option comes in. I've been wondering about that. Now the question becomes why is it that I can compile other software using -O6, and not the kernel? I would have assumed that that bug would be inherent in any software I compiled using it, but I guess not..but why not? Also, someone mentioned using -fno-strength-reduce? If I used that, with -O6, would I notice any benefits, or does using -fno-strength-reduce just about take out any benefits to -O6? Thanks... Marc G. Fournier | POP Mail Telnet Acct DNS Hosting scrappy@hub.org | WWW Services Database Services | Knowledge, soon to be: | | Information and scrappy@ki.net | WWW: http://hub.org | Communications, Inc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.951201141723.18665A-100000>