On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 21:00 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Joe Wreschnig writes: > > I guess I should ask here, too. Does anyone know why Python is compiled > > with -O3 rather than -O2? Also, does anyone know the best way to > > override distutils on a per-arch basis to change that? > > There's only one optimization macro to build the interpreter and the > modules. IMO it makes sense to build the interpreter with -O3, and > even to build the standard modules like _sre with this optimization > level. What can be done, is to lower the opt level after compilation > in the package. > > But as you can see, even with -O2 python2.4 FTBFS on m68k. Regardless, -O3 has been historically buggy compared to -O2 on every arch. Bill Allombert mentioned it was broken on x86 right now too. And given that I've spent about 5 hours digging around trying to discover the cause of #328587 -- or even reproduce it -- with no luck, I'm about to blame -O3 for it. If there aren't numbers suggesting -O3 is a real win, I think it's a bad idea to use it *anywhere*. It's a bad default, and an especially bad one for something like Python modules that sit on top of a very complex layer of code. And that's the case regardless of whether we're in the middle of m68k breakage or not. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part