[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GCC vs. /bsd
What do you mean it worked fine?
Did you run every program on your system and validated all the options?
Or did it *appear* to work because it booted?
Did you measure all the performance gains you got?
I am certainly certain that -Werror will halt gcc while it compiles the
first program. So could you elaborate on this?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Varga" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Miod Vallat" <email@example.com>
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 13:01
Subject: Re: GCC vs. /bsd
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 06:34:30PM +0000, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > > I've read in ml archive that OpenBSD can't be compiled setting -march
and -mcpu because of a gcc bug.
> > > For example, compiling /bsd with -mcpu=pentiumpro could cause
> > >
> > > I would like to know if it's solved in -current.
> > No it's not.
> > > BTW do you think gcc 3.1 could solve ?
> > While personnaly I am very sceptical about this, this probably won't be
> > tested. Unless someone with too much spare time on his hands tries to
> > build a kernel with such options and gcc 3.1 and waits for it to
> > eventually freeze...
> I built kernel with the OPTION i386, I486, I686 removed from the conf
> Using: gcc version 2.95.3 20010125 (prerelease)
> cc -march=i586 -Werror -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes\
> -Wno-uninitialized -Wno-format -Wno-main -O2 -nostdinc
> Useerland, X4 work fine. It is P5, 40M.
> > > When do you plan to move to gcc 3 ? 3.3 ?
> > When it will be time (i.e. gcc working reliably on all supported
> > architectures). Definitely not 3.2, and anyways don't hold your breath,
> > there are more important things to work on...
> > Miod