> Beautiful email!! Thanks David but, although the exact words are mine, I felt deja vu while writing them. I have been asked to contribute it to the gcc bug reporting docs as a warning against using the compiler in novel modes unless you actually first test it as I will describe. Then we will ask all reporters of CPU switch PRs whether they did or can do that test before attempting to stare at a full package/kernel failure mode. I will attempt to be a little more pro-active in watching the GNATS at gcc.gnu.org for FreeBSD. There appears to be an near endless supply of people that wish to add these CPU flags to kernel builds. ;-) >> Special secret #2: Although the FSF-side does want to improve all >> code generation (and I think proper PRs RE CPU switches will be >> looked at by someone given enough time) be aware that -O2 without >> special arch flags is probably the most stable for any given CPU >> for any given gcc release. Do you really want to trust a kernel >> built with optimization flags and arch flags that near zero or zero >> people have fully tested? Doubtful. However, inline with secret >> #1 and by virtual of being digital, if even one person tests it >> (i.e. yourself) and it appears OK, then it is probably safe to at >> least attempt to build a kernel and run it. > FreeBSD has for years recommended -O[1] vs. -O2. Do you think there is > value in having the GCC test suite runs you do at FreeBSD.org do runs > with both settings? Actually (slight backpettle), all of the modern DG test suite in gcc are run at the broad range of -O0,1,2,3. OTOH, by default, everyone is bootstrapping the compiler at -O2 everyday. > To also do runs with the newer CPU types? This would be quite revealing. I would like to extend the automatic regression checkers to cover that but, yow, I'm already eating a lot of cycles on those machines. Added to list of things to check. Regards, LorenReceived on Wed Mar 26 2003 - 11:58:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:01 UTC