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
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,
> ...
> >
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
>> > ...
>>
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
> 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.
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo