Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 01:18:20 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ACPI-CA 20040527 import Message-ID: <20040707081820.GE28368@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20040702191815.GM1034@green.homeunix.org> References: <200407020815.i628F5sp016504@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040702100347.GA9202@laptop.6bone.nl> <xzpd63eipfx.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040702161947.GI779@laptop.6bone.nl> <xzpk6xms6ve.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040702191815.GM1034@green.homeunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 03:18:15PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 06:37:09PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > > Mark Santcroos <marks@ripe.net> writes: > > > Any idea why I'm not seeing it? > > > > Because you're not building with -O2, like you should. > > I think DES forgot to say "for testing purposes." Normal AMD64, Sparc64, and IA-64 kernels are build with -O2. For others "-O2 -fno-strict-aliasing" is probably quite usable. > Also, why do we trust -O2 when there's still no assurance that the reason > it's broken with ppp(8) is a ppp(8) C bug itself? Why don't you trust 'gcc -O2' when the rest of the world can use -O2 and -O3 on their code bases?? (this includes large enterprise applications) -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040707081820.GE28368>