From owner-cvs-all Tue Sep 11 7:47:11 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from green.bikeshed.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32EA137B41E; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 07:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (green@localhost) by green.bikeshed.org (8.11.4/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8BEknK07078; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:46:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from green@green.bikeshed.org) Message-Id: <200109111446.f8BEknK07078@green.bikeshed.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Bruce Evans Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" , Mark Murray , Peter Wemm , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern subr_prf.c src/sys/sys systm.h In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Sep 2001 00:30:50 +1000." <20010912002041.J5036-100000@delplex.bde.org> From: "Brian F. Feldman" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:46:49 -0400 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Bruce Evans wrote: > On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > > > Mark Murray wrote: > > > > This hack brought to you by some questionable ``optimizations'' in gcc-3. > > > > gcc-3 takes it apon itself to convert: > > > > printf("string\n") -> puts("string"); > > > > and: > > > > printf("a"); -> putchar('a') > > > > etc. I dont know what they've been smoking over there in gcc-land, but > > > > it must be pretty good stuff. > > > > > > This "optimzation" on the part of GCC is extremely rude, IMVHO. Is there > > > a way (#define ?) of permanently disabling it? > > > > > > C is not FORTRAN - there are no intrinsic functions in C. Grrrrr..... > > > > Agreed. Peter's original comment was absolutely justified. The _ONLY_ case > > I can see this possibly being even moderately alright is if it is somehow > > done in a way that makes it act like a macro definition and can be > > #undefined or (called)() in one of the standard ways. > > Disagreed. This seems like a normal optimization to me. It's like > replacing strlen("foo") by 3. So you don't take issues at all with GCC not only implementing the C language per se but implementing actual C library routines, no matter how standard they may be, in the compilation step? -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! / green@FreeBSD.org `------------------------------' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message