On Friday, 5. November 2004 23:23, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 11:16:51PM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > On Friday, 5. November 2004 22:56, Michael Johnson wrote: > > > On Nov 5, 2004, at 4:52 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > Same as on 6.x - the bugs are in the ports themselves. Don't do it > > > > if you want your ports to work correctly. > > > > > > Is there a list of what's broke with -O2 in ports anywhere? > > > > It's kinda hard to come up with one based on compiler warnings & > > paranoia. :) > > It might be hard to come up with a definitive list of problems, but > the fact that there are bugs in many ports that are manifested when > they are compiled with -O2 is undeniable. I'd s/many/some, but that's just me (the fact that there are bugs in many ports that are manifested by just compiling them, regardless of CFLAGS, is undeniable, too ;)). Anyway, regarding the question of the OP, at least KDE should be -O2-safe, it's been the default optimization level of the project for a long time. That said, I never noticed any cool speed gains from that at runtime - I did notice the increase of compilation-time though (and I notice it more with each gcc update). -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi_at_freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:21 UTC