From owner-freebsd-current Fri Dec 8 11:23:10 2000 From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 8 11:23:07 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from vic.cioe.com (vic.cioe.com [204.120.165.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2738B37B400 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 11:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ny1wsh031 (blackhole.cioe.com [204.120.165.44]) by vic.cioe.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eB8JN6j68457 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:23:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from steve@virtual-voodoo.com) Message-ID: <02fc01c0614c$4a789880$8a1a050a@winstar.com> From: "Steven E. Ames" To: References: Subject: Current Locking up... Re: possibly related data point - (was) Re: Current Broken! Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:23:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -CURRENT as of yesterday was still causing my system to lock (with 'make -j8 world'). Lock=no possibility of debugger. I have two of these systems and they behave identically. If someone with lots more debugging experience would benefit from borrowing one of the machines I'd happily send it to you. I'd really like to be use SMP stabily. -Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Baldwin" To: Cc: ; ; "Andrew [SKY:ET95:EXCH]" Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 1:49 PM Subject: RE: possibly related data point - (was) Re: Current Broken! > > On 08-Dec-00 atrens@nortel.ca wrote: > > > > I hit on it by accident (I normally compile with -O). That said, your > > claim that gcc with no optimization generates incorrect code is > > kind of counter-intuitive, wouldn't you say ? > > I've seen it do weird things with -O0 (mostly with C++). :) It's just another > program. Nothing is keeping it from having bugs. :) > > > I think you missed my point, I was just illustrating that optimizer seems > > to affect (in my case apparently negate) the processing of constraints. > > I am back now to thinking that it is a gcc bug in the -O case now as well. The > constraings I removed were in fact valid, so I've put them back in, but just > disabled the macros for now until gcc is fixed. > > > What you take from that is up to you - I was just trying to be helpful :) > > Sorry if I came across as if I was biting your head off, that was not the > intent. > > > Cheers, > > > > A. > > -- > > John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > PGP Key: http://www.Baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message