[releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64

[Wilko Bulte]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 09:55:49PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote..
> From: Scott Long <scottl at samsco.org>
> Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64
> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:40:42 -0700
> 
> > Warner Losh wrote:
> > > From: des at des.no (Dag-Erling Smørgrav)
> > > Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64
> > > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:53:38 +0100
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> writes:
> > >>
> > >>>COPTFLAGS=-O -pipe according to the tinderbox logs.
> > >>
> > >>Hmm, yes, apparently it only uses -O2 on HEAD.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Can we not have special flags for tinderbox builds?  It make
> > > pre-commit testing a big pita.  How about just -O on both head and in
> > > RELENG_6?  The kernel make files have special magic to disable the
> > > parts of -O2 that are known to be bad because tinderbox uses -O2,
> > > despite efforts in the past to stop the practice.
> > > 
> > > Warner
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > There is value in testing -O2, since enabling that is a good long-term
> > goal.  What might be nice is to run tinderboxes with all default
> > compiler settings, and then once or twice a week to a special run that
> > has the more experimental flags.
> 
> My point is that it is unreasonable to get bitched at for tinerbox
> breakages that don't show up when building lint because the tinderbox
> person is too stubborn to not use non-standard flags.

I would think that the tinderboxes should run 100% the same flags as
what normal release builds use.  Nothing more, nothing less.

-- 
Wilko Bulte				wilko at FreeBSD.org