HEADS UP: Ports are not ready for CFLAGS=-O2 in 6.0

[Michael Nottebrock]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20041106/d443595b/attachment-0001.bin