[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: stripclub - Online Comic Reader/Archiver

On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 09:00:01AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Friday 09 April 2004 22.24, William Ballard wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 03:15:20PM -0500, elijah wright wrote:

> > > in my experience compiling stuff with -O3 just means that people on
> > > other architectures (where GCC may do odd things) will eventually
> > > probably file bugs on your package that can be fixed by moving back
> > > to -O2.

> > I know how tricky these issues are, but it sounds like the bugs
> > should more appropriately be filed against gcc on archs.  where -O3
> > breaks. Unless it's squirrelly and it's really not broken on those
> > architectures, but the *app* is somehow doing something wrong.

> Of course they are gcc bugs and should be duly reported. The question 
> is: should package x (working with -O2, not working with -O3 
> - -fspecially-optimised) be buggy (often FTBFS or RC) because of a gcc 
> problem when a really trivial workaround is available? I think not, 
> especially in the usual case where the code is not performance critical 
> at all.

It would still be a bug to turn on -O3 optimization when you don't know
what you're doing (which is to say, in the vast majority of cases),
whether or not it actually trips a compiler bug in the process.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: