On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 07:15:16PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 10:40:50AM +1000, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > >>>to bug #317475 on gcc-4.0. As a workaround, you might try compiling with > >>>less optimization or gcc-3.3/gcc-3.4. > >>+ifneq (,$(findstring m68k,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH))) > >>+ CFLAGS = -Wall -O0 > >>+endif > > For the record, -O2 seems to work fine. The segfaults only seem to > > apply to -O3 and better (at least in my experience). > This seems to affect one of the packages I sponsor as well: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=325557 > If gcc-4.0 is going to puke on lots of packages that use -O3, doesn't it > make more sense to upload a patched gcc-4.0 for m68k that silently > changes the optimization level back to 2 untile the problem with the > compiler can be fixed rather than upload and recompile a large number of > packages for every architecture? If you have a patch that fixes the ICEs on m68k, by all means please forward it to the BTS. But a larger question is, why are so many packages being built entirely with -O3 when policy recommends -O2? Policy does say it's ok to use other compiler flags if appropriate, but I'd be surprised if all of these packages have been benchmarked to confirm that -O3 actually gives measurable performance benefits. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature