From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from megatonmonkey.net (cr821974-a.lndn1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.53.173]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0A6482A for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 07:57:56 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:59:13 -0400 From: "Carlos O'Donell Jr." To: Matthew Wilcox , parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Cc: baldric-exec@baldric.uwo.ca Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Glibc 2.2.4-2 No Optimizations = No Compliation Message-ID: <20011011095913.A8106@megatonmonkey.net> References: <20011011073101.B5637@megatonmonkey.net> <20011011144718.A22924@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20011011144718.A22924@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>; from willy@debian.org on Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 02:47:18PM +0100 List-ID: > > I dunno... I oftn find optimised easier to read. > Really? How about unrolled loops? ;) In this case with GCC 3.0 being so fresh, there might be some issues with -O2... so I'd like to see what happend at -O0. I've patched, and I'm currently recompiling with -O0... so we'll see. > > I don't know. But I guess glibc needs to inline something, and this doesn't > happen below -O1. > True. But that really shouldn't make much difference since AFAIK inlining doesn't happen until -O2, but config.h just says... "You must have atleast -O1" Those inlines, if they aren't there, would cause the build to fail... and I still haven't seen any indication of this. We shall see. If -O0 still segfaults, I'll trace that asm and see what I can see... damn this all sounds so much like voodoo magic. c.