Re: 6.0 and -O2 option
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:57:53AM +1000, Robert Backhaus wrote: [ ... ] Simply because not every port works with -O2 optimisations. It caused bad code in some circumstances. Is there an automated way to identify those ports so they can be forced not to use -O higer than -O1? Regrettably, no. Well, -Werror might be somewhere between overkill and helpful, assuming the compiler can recognize a potential type-punning situation. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 6.0 and -O2 option
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:57:05AM -0400, Chuck Swiger wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:57:53AM +1000, Robert Backhaus wrote: [ ... ] Simply because not every port works with -O2 optimisations. It caused bad code in some circumstances. Is there an automated way to identify those ports so they can be forced not to use -O higer than -O1? Regrettably, no. Well, -Werror might be somewhere between overkill and helpful, assuming the compiler can recognize a potential type-punning situation. Even if the identification can't be done automatically, it still seems like it would be good to start identifying ports that don't support -O by hand, and having the ports force a correct -O setting. Most ports support -O2 (if not -O3), and it would be nice if people could just put that option in their make.conf and be done with it. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect[EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? FreeBSD: Are you guys coming, or what? ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 6.0 and -O2 option
Jim C. Nasby wrote: Even if the identification can't be done automatically, it still seems like it would be good to start identifying ports that don't support -O by hand, and having the ports force a correct -O setting. Most ports support -O2 (if not -O3), and it would be nice if people could just put that option in their make.conf and be done with it. It would be even better if we had some way to handle ports that work with make -j n and those who don't, as it is now a SMP machine is a total waste when compiling ports. /Martin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 6.0 and -O2 option
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:41:37 +0400 Boris Samorodov wrote: On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:09:47 +0200 Rene Ladan wrote: On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 04:30:19PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: As for 5.x notes about -O2 (libalias, gcc) were removed at revision 1.229.2.7 of /usr/src/share/examples/etc/make.conf. But for 6.0-BETA3 we do have these warnings. Should they be removed as for 5.x? Is it safe to use -O2 to build/install kernel, world, ports fro 6.0? Kernel and world seem to be ok with -O2, for ports it is not advised. Well, as nobody complained so far, should I file a PR to remove notes about -O2 to examples/etc/make.conf for 6.0-BETA3? OK. Here it is: - http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=85548 Category: conf Responsible:freebsd-bugs Synopsis: share/examples/etc/make.conf: delete -O2 warnings for 6.0-BETA3 Arrival-Date: Wed Aug 31 22:10:30 GMT 2005 - Who will take the resposibility? Oh, not all of you, guys... ;-) WBR -- bsam ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 6.0 and -O2 option
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:57:53AM +1000, Robert Backhaus wrote: Kernel and world seem to be ok with -O2, for ports it is not advised. Hi, I may have missed a thread or something (just let me know :) ) - why is -O2 not advised for ports on 6.0? cheers, Beto Simply because not every port works with -O2 optimisations. It caused bad code in some circumstances. Is there an automated way to identify those ports so they can be forced not to use -O higer than -O1? -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect[EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? FreeBSD: Are you guys coming, or what? ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 6.0 and -O2 option
Rene Ladan wrote: On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 04:30:19PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: Hi! As for 5.x notes about -O2 (libalias, gcc) were removed at revision 1.229.2.7 of /usr/src/share/examples/etc/make.conf. But for 6.0-BETA3 we do have these warnings. Should they be removed as for 5.x? Is it safe to use -O2 to build/install kernel, world, ports fro 6.0? Kernel and world seem to be ok with -O2, for ports it is not advised. Hi, I may have missed a thread or something (just let me know :) ) - why is -O2 not advised for ports on 6.0? cheers, Beto ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 6.0 and -O2 option
Kernel and world seem to be ok with -O2, for ports it is not advised. Hi, I may have missed a thread or something (just let me know :) ) - why is -O2 not advised for ports on 6.0? cheers, Beto Simply because not every port works with -O2 optimisations. It caused bad code in some circumstances. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 6.0 and -O2 option
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 04:30:19PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
Hi!
As for 5.x notes about -O2 (libalias, gcc) were removed at revision
1.229.2.7 of /usr/src/share/examples/etc/make.conf. But for 6.0-BETA3
we do have these warnings. Should they be removed as for 5.x? Is it
safe to use -O2 to build/install kernel, world, ports fro 6.0?
Kernel and world seem to be ok with -O2, for ports it is not advised.
I have this in /etc/make.conf:
# -- all -- #
.if ${.CURDIR:M/usr/src*}
CFLAGS=-O2 -pipe
.else
CFLAGS=-O -pipe
.endif
CPUTYPE?=pentium3
# -- ports -- #
WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS=yes
So kernel and world (which source lives in /usr/src) are built with -O2,
while anything else is built with -O. Some ports allow optimized
compiler flags with WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS.
WBR
--
bsam
Regards,
Rene
--
GPG fingerprint = 5FFA 3959 3377 C697 8428 24D0 BF3E F4A9 AE33 5DCC
It won't fit on the line.
-- me, 2001
pgpobk2jIAu54.pgp
Description: PGP signature
