On Mon, Apr 10, 2000, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kris Kennaway) writes:
>
> > Can you say "gimmick"? :-) gcc often produces demonstrably broken code for
> > optimisation levels higher than -O.
>
> That -O is safe seems to be a persistent myth. GCC also produces
> broken code for -O and no optimization in some cases, sometimes while
> producing working code for higher optimization levels... I wouldn't
> state e.g. that -O2 produces broken code any more often than -O, this
> may have been true for version X.Y.Z but is certainly not universally
> true.
>
> I believe that the reasons the FreeBSD build uses -O are the fact that
> especially with older versions of gcc, -O2 slowed down compilation
> considerably for little noticable performance improvement (as for -O3,
> automatic inlining is generally undesirable), and it is always best to
> only have to test the system with a single set of flags.
I have exactly the same problem hacking squid code under 4.0-CURRENT
and 5.0-CURRENT. Basically, inside the dns routines a variable
would be corrupted between a couple of non-relevant lines, and cause
squid to segfault after trying to resolve anything. Taknig out -O2
and replacing it with -O causes the same problem. Its annoying. :(
Adrian
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
