Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-09 Thread Michael Nottebrock
David O'Brien wrote: >>>If someone could find the small segment of code where the optimizer >>>screws up, and write a small program to demonstrate the problem, we >>>would have a good chance of it getting fixed. >> >>Er, someone (Dan Lukes) has already done this. See PR 40209. > > > It looks l

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-09 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Aug 08), David O'Brien said: > On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 08:01:10PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > > sorry, but some time ago I read here that gcc -O2 breaks our > > > > printf() in libc. I haven't find any assembler code in > > > > /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/vfprintf.c, > ... > >

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-08 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 08:01:10PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > sorry, but some time ago I read here that gcc -O2 breaks our printf() in > > > libc. I haven't find any assembler code in /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/vfprintf.c, ... > > If someone could find the small segment of code where the optimiz

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-08 Thread Michael Nottebrock
Michael Nottebrock wrote: > Bruce Evans wrote: >> Er, someone (Dan Lukes) has already done this. See PR 40209. I'm sorry >> I haven't found time to look at it in detail. > > > O2-compiling -CURRENT (and -march=athlon ...) still manages to break > DCCs in xchat And, through __vnprintf, nawk t

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-08 Thread Michael Nottebrock
Bruce Evans wrote: > On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: > > >>Andrew Kolchoogin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>... >>>sorry, but some time ago I read here that gcc -O2 breaks our printf() in >>>libc. I haven't find any assembler code in /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/vfprintf.c, >>>as such, if

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-04 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: > Andrew Kolchoogin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... > > sorry, but some time ago I read here that gcc -O2 breaks our printf() in > > libc. I haven't find any assembler code in /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio/vfprintf.c, > > as such, if some C compiler can't ha

RE: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-04 Thread Chris Knight
Howdy, > -Original Message- > From: John Baldwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, 2 August 2002 4:05 > To: Bruce Evans > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chris Knight > Subject: RE: Comments on Release Building for -current > > > On 01

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-03 Thread Mike Barcroft
Andrew Kolchoogin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David, > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 12:39:55AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > > The rest of the GCC using world can use -O2 on their code. We are the > > only ones that have so much trouble with it. It is probably due to our > > bugs, not GCC's.

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-02 Thread Andrew Kolchoogin
David, On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 12:39:55AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > The rest of the GCC using world can use -O2 on their code. We are the > only ones that have so much trouble with it. It is probably due to our > bugs, not GCC's. sorry, but some time ago I read here that gcc -O2 breaks our

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-02 Thread David O'Brien
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 04:20:53AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > I wouldn't trust -O2 for releases without lots of testing in -current > (and not updating the compiler after testing). The rest of the GCC using world can use -O2 on their code. We are the only ones that have so much trouble with it.

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-01 Thread Bruce Evans
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 02:57:44AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > I'm surprised -Os [-falign...] isn't already the default for crunches. > > -Os is -O2 except for those optimizations which bloat. We don't trust > -O2 and thus maybe should not -Os. Hopef

RE: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-01 Thread John Baldwin
On 01-Aug-2002 Bruce Evans wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > >> On 31-Jul-2002 Chris Knight wrote: >> > ... >> > the mfsroot floppy contents were too large >> > ... >> > the kern floppy contents were too large >> > ... >> > the fixit floppy contents were too large >> > ... >> >

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-01 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Aug 01), David O'Brien said: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 02:57:44AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > I'm surprised -Os [-falign...] isn't already the default for > > crunches. > > -Os is -O2 except for those optimizations which bloat. We don't trust > -O2 and thus maybe should no

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-01 Thread David O'Brien
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 02:57:44AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > I'm surprised -Os [-falign...] isn't already the default for crunches. -Os is -O2 except for those optimizations which bloat. We don't trust -O2 and thus maybe should not -Os. Hopefully we have found all our bad in-line ASM and -O2

RE: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-08-01 Thread Bruce Evans
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > On 31-Jul-2002 Chris Knight wrote: > > ... > > the mfsroot floppy contents were too large > > ... > > the kern floppy contents were too large > > ... > > the fixit floppy contents were too large > > ... > > Oof. It's like our binaries are suddenly very

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-07-31 Thread Terry Lambert
Murray Stokely wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:33:38AM -0400, W Gerald Hicks wrote: > > Yup, it's been reported several times by various people and it seems > > everyone > > who can help is too busy to care. > > > > "This isn't fun anymore". :-( > > Uhm, did I miss something? Where does

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-07-31 Thread Murray Stokely
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:33:38AM -0400, W Gerald Hicks wrote: > Yup, it's been reported several times by various people and it seems > everyone > who can help is too busy to care. > > "This isn't fun anymore". :-( Uhm, did I miss something? Where does this attitude come from? Did you su

RE: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-07-31 Thread Chris Knight
Howdy, > -Original Message- > From: John Baldwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2002 23:12 > To: Chris Knight > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Comments on Release Building for -current > > [snip] > > Oo

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-07-31 Thread John Hay
> > As the snapshot manager at snapshots.jp.freebsd.org would be aware, > current's release building capability is woeful to say the least. A fair > bit of tidying up will need to be done for DP2. > I've managed to complete a successful release build of current with a > checkout of two days ago.

RE: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-07-31 Thread John Baldwin
On 31-Jul-2002 Chris Knight wrote: > Howdy, > > As the snapshot manager at snapshots.jp.freebsd.org would be aware, > current's release building capability is woeful to say the least. A fair > bit of tidying up will need to be done for DP2. > I've managed to complete a successful release build o

Re: Comments on Release Building for -current

2002-07-31 Thread W Gerald Hicks
Yup, it's been reported several times by various people and it seems everyone who can help is too busy to care. "This isn't fun anymore". :-( -- Jerry Hicks On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 06:18 AM, Chris Knight wrote: > Howdy, > > As the snapshot manager at snapshots.jp.freebsd.org woul