On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 06:43:35AM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > On Wed, 2003-08-06 23:08:22 +0200, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Jan-Benedict Glaw writes: > > > i386 seems to die, sun4m also does have servere problems... Where does > > > this lead to? All these seem to arise from doing optimization which > > > hasn't been proved to (really) make things better... Everything I see is > > > that it's breaking stuff. > > > > the ix86 change was for _compatibility_ reasons, not for > > _performance_. > > I know. Compatibility. To whom? Compatibility to allow someone to copy a > eg. SuSE C++ binary over to a debian box. Why may it crash (or work in > some undefined way)? Because it was optimized for i486+, or did I get > the whole thing wrong? > > Am I wrong or did we, "forced" because we wanted to be binary compatible > to some major distributions, just follow others and doing optimization > just as they did? > > See, I'm not ranting over this one special "bug" introduced into > libstdc++5, I'm not ranting on hwmath on sparc (esp. in kernel:), but > I'm ranting on the common movement to optimize a case and break another. > > MfG, JBG
Suggest you read the list archives before raising this discussion again. It had nothing at all to do with optimization, either ours or theirs. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer