From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:03:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:03:49 -0500 Received: from ns01.netrox.net ([64.118.231.130]:9346 "EHLO smtp01.netrox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:03:31 -0500 Subject: Re: gcc 3.0.2/kernel details (-O issue) From: Robert Love To: Martin Devera Cc: Chris Meadors , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.0.99+cvs.2001.12.18.08.57 (Preview Release) Date: 19 Dec 2001 15:03:30 -0500 Message-Id: <1008792213.806.36.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2001-12-19 at 14:39, Martin Devera wrote: > It is interesting that 2.2 can be done with -O. Also I'd expect > errors during compilation and not silent crash... Well, you certainly won't get errors, because compiler optimizations shouldn't change expected syntax. -O2 is the standard optimization level for the kernel; everything is compiled via it. When developers test their code, nuances that the optimization introduce are accepted. Removing the optimization may break those expectations. Thus the kernel requires it. Robert Love