Hi! As for 5.x notes about -O2 (libalias, gcc) were removed at revision 1.229.2.7 of /usr/src/share/examples/etc/make.conf. But for 6.0-BETA3 we do have these warnings. Should they be removed as for 5.x? Is it safe to use -O2 to build/install kernel, world, ports fro 6.0? WBR -- bsam
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 04:30:19PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:> Hi! > > > As for 5.x notes about -O2 (libalias, gcc) were removed at revision > 1.229.2.7 of /usr/src/share/examples/etc/make.conf. But for 6.0-BETA3 > we do have these warnings. Should they be removed as for 5.x? Is it > safe to use -O2 to build/install kernel, world, ports fro 6.0? >Kernel and world seem to be ok with -O2, for ports it is not advised. I have this in /etc/make.conf: # -- all -- # .if ${.CURDIR:M/usr/src*} CFLAGS=-O2 -pipe .else CFLAGS=-O -pipe .endif CPUTYPE?=pentium3 # -- ports -- # WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=yes So kernel and world (which source lives in /usr/src) are built with -O2, while anything else is built with -O. Some ports allow optimized compiler flags with WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS.> WBR > -- > bsam >Regards, Rene -- GPG fingerprint = 5FFA 3959 3377 C697 8428 24D0 BF3E F4A9 AE33 5DCC "It won't fit on the line." -- me, 2001 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050828/477223e5/attachment.bin
Rene Ladan wrote:> On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 04:30:19PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: > >>Hi! >> >> >>As for 5.x notes about -O2 (libalias, gcc) were removed at revision >>1.229.2.7 of /usr/src/share/examples/etc/make.conf. But for 6.0-BETA3 >>we do have these warnings. Should they be removed as for 5.x? Is it >>safe to use -O2 to build/install kernel, world, ports fro 6.0? >> > > Kernel and world seem to be ok with -O2, for ports it is not advised.Hi, I may have missed a thread or something (just let me know :) ) - why is -O2 not advised for ports on 6.0? cheers, Beto
> > Kernel and world seem to be ok with -O2, for ports it is not advised. > > Hi, > I may have missed a thread or something (just let me know :) ) - why is > -O2 not advised for ports on 6.0? > cheers, > BetoSimply because not every port works with -O2 optimisations. It caused bad code in some circumstances.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:57:53AM +1000, Robert Backhaus wrote:> > > Kernel and world seem to be ok with -O2, for ports it is not advised. > > > > Hi, > > I may have missed a thread or something (just let me know :) ) - why is > > -O2 not advised for ports on 6.0? > > cheers, > > Beto > > Simply because not every port works with -O2 optimisations. It caused > bad code in some circumstances.Is there an automated way to identify those ports so they can be forced not to use -O higer than -O1? -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
Jim C. Nasby wrote:> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:57:53AM +1000, Robert Backhaus wrote:[ ... ]>> Simply because not every port works with -O2 optimisations. It caused >> bad code in some circumstances. > > Is there an automated way to identify those ports so they can be forced > not to use -O higer than -O1?Regrettably, no. Well, -Werror might be somewhere between overkill and helpful, assuming the compiler can recognize a potential type-punning situation. -- -Chuck