rodolfo at rodsoft.org
Wed Apr 9 05:02:50 PDT 2003
> Because some code can't be optimised in this way and -O3 has been known to
> cause gcc to produce incorrect code which in turn causes hard to find
> bugs. -O2 seems to be safer in this respect, but I didn't think that
> optimisations were specified in the commands, or are you talking about
> pure-lfs here?
Yes, I was talking about pure-lfs. I've already heard of this "bug" of gcc,
but isn't it something that happened in previous versions (2.98,...)? This
seems to have become a kind of taboo :) I'll try to build an pure-lfs
version with -O3 and test if it's ok. I'm using a rather slow machine and i
want to know how much I gain for using those extra optimizations.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev