I was just thinking that by enabling the required feature
individually, someone else could choose -O0 and not have to
investigate why it fails. Its not like its a big deal, though. :-)
JP
P.S. Why does the list set the reply-to header, isn't that supposed
to be a Bad Thing™?
On 29 Mar 2006, at 01:59, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:26:27PM -0800, John Davidorff Pell wrote:
Out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to specifically request that
feature of gcc, with one of its myriad options, rather than forcing a
rather large optimization sweep? I'm sure that -O2 is good generally,
but using it as a kludge to get at one of the many things that it
enables seems like a not-so-great-idea. Its like buying a restaurant
so that you can get a chef's stove.
Well, I went through the ppc disassembly and found no reason to
disable -O2. Note that it was the default before, I only noticed
the breakage when I lowered the global optimisation to -O0 for better
debugging.
Thiemo
_______________________________________________
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
--
Blood is thicker than water... and much tastier.
_______________________________________________
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
