GCC 4.4.0 XCFLAGS

[Bryan Kadzban]

On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 07:56:02AM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 06:52:49 -0700, Bryan Kadzban <bryan at kadzban.is-a-geek.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 08:55:50PM +0100, Guy Dalziel wrote:
> >> I don't know how important the difference 
> >> between _most_ compiles and _all_ compiles is, but T_CFLAGS seems to
> > work 
> >> just as well.
> > 
> > The point of adding that flag was to create byte-for-byte identical
> > compiler binaries.  Have you verified that hacking on T_CFLAGS (instead
> > of XCFLAGS) actually does this?
> 
> To be honest, Bryan, I only care about the fact that the bootstrapped and
> non-bootstrapped compilers should be feature/speed compatible, and without
> that flag they won't be (as -fomit-frame-pointer speeds the compiler up,
> apparently).

Well, only by removing a tiny bit of code from the functions that "don't
need it".  But yeah, OK.

> If it also makes things byte-for-byte compatible, then all the better.

I suspect T_CFLAGS won't -- but then again, I was just going by the
description given when it was added.  If that's not entirely relevant,
then whatever.

Objection withdrawn.  :-P

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20090704/34391b7f/attachment.bin