On 27/11/13 23:37, David L. Craig wrote: > On 13Nov27:1423+1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > >> On 27/11/13 13:49, David L. Craig wrote: > >>> On 13Nov26:1545-0500, David L. Craig wrote: >>> >>>> On 13Nov26:1437-0500, Mark Haase wrote: >>>> >>>>> Therefore, a Linux distribution has 2 choices: (1) wait for upstream >>>>> patches for bugs/vulnerabilities as they are found, or (2) recompile all >>>>> packages with optimizations disabled. I don't think proposal #2 would get >>>>> very far... >>>> >>>> Well, there's always -O1 as opposed to no optimization. >>>> BTW, -O1 is the minimum permitted for making gcc or glibc, >>>> I forget which. >>> >>> I'm rebuilding glibc 2.18 now with -O1 after it refused -O0, >>> but binutils 2.23.2, gcc 4.8.1, and g++ 4.8.1 are fine with >>> -O0. >> >> And what was the result of poptck (STACK) when you tested them? > > I haven't gotten that far yet, and it may be a while, since I want > to verify the internal tests and checks first but expect and dejagnu > aren't building using the deoptimized binaries (I'm using LFS 7.4 > stable). So perhaps someone way ahead of me with LLVM/CLANG would > like to report on this behavior. >
I was hoping you'd do the work for me. (please) :) Kind regards. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5295ebe7.50...@gmail.com