Charles Cox wrote: > > I would like to add that some of us who do a lot of numerically intensive > programming, and that need to squeeze every last available cycle out of > our CPU's would really appreciate having -O2 available for userland > programs. To me, getting rid of the -O2+ switch would be like outlawing > cars because someone had a really bad car accident. Just like driving a > car, using gcc and the -O2 switch safely are the USER's > responsibility. Having said this though, I do fully support having > comments in make.conf, and documentation elsewhere that cautions against > compiling a kernel with -O2. Whatever. Remember, though, that compiling with -O2 *WILL* result in bad code. It's not that someone had an accident. Is that the breaks don't work one time out of five. Just wait your turn... -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, One IP to bring them all and in the zone bind them. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message