On Fri, 7 May 2004, Scott Long wrote: > Doug White wrote: > > Also if we get into the 5.3 release timeframe we'll have to make a call to > > ship with a -O2 compiled kernel or not. > > > > Are you proposing dropping -O2 for 5.3 because you are afraid that there > are other, not-yet-detected broken cases? I thought that we found a > source code work-around that forced gcc to generate the correct assembly > with -O2. Maybe that should be committed for the time being? Dropping back to -O is the safer route of the two for sure ... who knows how many other similar constructions are out there and just happen to not cause hangs. I'd just like us to do *something* before 5.3 gets out the door and we have random amd64 boxes falling over in potentially unrecoverable scenarios. :) -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite_at_gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Fri May 07 2004 - 16:04:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:53 UTC