From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 29 15:18:51 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BDCDE37B404; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9326F43F3F; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3p2/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA31892;
	Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:18:46 +1000
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:18:45 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030729203250.GE66399@sunbay.com>
Message-ID: <20030730081255.B1670@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <20030729103054.GA33488@BSDWins.Com>
	<20030729120105.GB20737@sunbay.com>
	<20030729125738.GA27879@sunbay.com>
	<20030729143848.GA37496@sunbay.com>
	<20030729203250.GE66399@sunbay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: current@freebsd.org
cc: Peter Wemm <peter@freebsd.org>
cc: John De Boskey <jwd@bsdwins.com>
Subject: Re: -current 'make release' status? [SOLVED]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:18:52 -0000

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 06:14:17AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> > > Forget what I've said about NO_WERROR, it (unfortunately) only
> > > applies to the userland.
> > >
> > > Still, running "make rerelease KERNEL_FLAGS=WERROR=" gets the
> > > release done.
> > >
> > > I wondered why I get it, and similarly my nigthly "buildkernel"
> > > completed without errors.  This turned out to be due to the
> > > -O vs. -Os differences.  For example, compiling vfs_subr.o
> > > from the GENERIC kernel results in these same warnings when
> > > compiled with COPTFLAGS="-Os -pipe".  Peter, should we switch
> > > -Werror back off in kern.pre.mk?
> >
> > Use -fno-strict-aliasing if you use -Os.  Otherwise, -Os is stricter
        ^^

This was too complete :-).  I meant -Wno-strict-aliasing when I wrote it
(since I misread the info about -Os).

> > than -O.
> >
> > On second thoughts, -Os implies -f-strict-aliasing because -Os may
> > need strict aliasing for the same reasons as -O2.  We've seen -O2
> > in combination with broken aliasing in libm cause fatal errors.
> > Better find part of -O2 that needs strict aliasing and turn it off
> > too.
> >
> Hm, I always thought that -O2 and -Os are just useful aliases
> that in effect only turn a few dozens of -f optimization flags,
> and that switching some of them off later is allowed.  I.e.,
> "-Os -fno-strict-aliasing" should work.

Yes, this seems to be the only option that needs warnings about strict
aliasing.

Bruce