On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:27:30AM -0700, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:00:45PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
>
> > > gcc's code optimizations are broken, and should be avoided.
> >
> > Not any more with GCC 3.2, unless you have a test case to prove it broken.
>
> Well you still
Kris Kennaway schrieb:
>On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:12:07AM +0200, Daniel Rock wrote:
>
>
>
>>gprof "thinks" the runtime is only 8 seconds, while in reality it takes
>>more than 2 minutes to complete the test. A small excerpt from gprof output
>>
>>
>
>Are you running a kernel with WITNESS
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:00:45PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > gcc's code optimizations are broken, and should be avoided.
>
> Not any more with GCC 3.2, unless you have a test case to prove it broken.
Well you still can't buildworld with "-O3 -march=pentiumpro
-fno-strength-reduce". Looks
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:12:07AM +0200, Daniel Rock wrote:
> gprof "thinks" the runtime is only 8 seconds, while in reality it takes
> more than 2 minutes to complete the test. A small excerpt from gprof output
Are you running a kernel with WITNESS enabled? This can really chew
up kernel CPU
Kris Kennaway schrieb:
>On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:31:28PM +0200, Daniel Rock wrote:
>
>
>
>>The errors during "make test" are only one issue. What bothers me even
>>more ist the high runtime of some of the tests (up to several *hours*).
>>Finally a "make test" completed on my machine (perl-5
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:31:28PM +0200, Daniel Rock wrote:
> The errors during "make test" are only one issue. What bothers me even
> more ist the high runtime of some of the tests (up to several *hours*).
> Finally a "make test" completed on my machine (perl-5.8 compiled without
> optimizat
David O'Brien schrieb:
>On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 01:44:07PM -0700, Alex Zepeda wrote:
>
>
>>So turn off the optimizations?
>>
>>
>
>No in -CURRENT with GCC 3.2, we want to know when -O2 causes a problem.
>
>
>
>>gcc's code optimizations are broken, and should be avoided.
>>
>>
>
>Not
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 03:12:25PM -0700, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:03:54AM +0200, Daniel Rock wrote:
>
> > But why don't show the same optimization levels on another intel
> > platform (Solaris x86, gcc-3.2 release) no problem?
>
> Because it's not the same compiler. -cu
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 01:44:07PM -0700, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> So turn off the optimizations?
No in -CURRENT with GCC 3.2, we want to know when -O2 causes a problem.
> gcc's code optimizations are broken, and should be avoided.
Not any more with GCC 3.2, unless you have a test case to prove it
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:03:54AM +0200, Daniel Rock wrote:
> But why don't show the same optimization levels on another intel
> platform (Solaris x86, gcc-3.2 release) no problem?
Because it's not the same compiler. -current is not using 3.2.
$gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: F
Alex Zepeda schrieb:
>So turn off the optimizations?
>
>gcc's code optimizations are broken, and should be avoided. If you want
>to break perl 5.6 you can do so with -O3 -march=pentiumpro (somehow I
>suspect -O2 would have the same effect).
>
>Besides, that just goes to show, it's not perl that'
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 10:37:53PM +0200, Daniel Rock wrote:
> If I compile it with optimization enabled "make test" fails at t/op/pat,
> test 640. Only with no optimization at all this test succeeded. I tried
> the following options
So turn off the optimizations?
gcc's code optimizations are
12 matches
Mail list logo
