Re: MIT discovered issue with gcc
On 13Nov27:1423+1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 27/11/13 13:49, David L. Craig wrote:
> > On 13Nov26:1545-0500, David L. Craig wrote:
> >
> >> On 13Nov26:1437-0500, Mark Haase wrote:
> >>
> >>> Therefore, a Linux distribution has 2 choices: (1) wait for upstream
> >>> patches for bugs/vulnerabilities as they are found, or (2) recompile all
> >>> packages with optimizations disabled. I don't think proposal #2 would get
> >>> very far...
> >>
> >> Well, there's always -O1 as opposed to no optimization.
> >> BTW, -O1 is the minimum permitted for making gcc or glibc,
> >> I forget which.
> >
> > I'm rebuilding glibc 2.18 now with -O1 after it refused -O0,
> > but binutils 2.23.2, gcc 4.8.1, and g++ 4.8.1 are fine with
> > -O0.
>
> And what was the result of poptck (STACK) when you tested them?
I haven't gotten that far yet, and it may be a while, since I want
to verify the internal tests and checks first but expect and dejagnu
aren't building using the deoptimized binaries (I'm using LFS 7.4
stable). So perhaps someone way ahead of me with LLVM/CLANG would
like to report on this behavior.
--
<not cent from sell>
May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly!
Dave_Craig______________________________________________
"So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.
You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then.
Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe."
__--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_________________
Reply to: