| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 04:37:05PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> I thought he wanted flags that broke upgrading between GCC 3.4 and 4.1. |
| 3 |
> tree-loop-linear wasn't in 3.4. If you want flags that just break |
| 4 |
> stuff with 4.1 you can include -ftree-vectorize. |
| 5 |
Thanks. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> > The objective here was mainly to point out some things that users are |
| 8 |
> > doing that are causing breakages, leading to bugs that are ultimately |
| 9 |
> > marked INVALID after much tracing. |
| 10 |
> Like using CFLAGS not on the Safe CFLAGS page? ;) |
| 11 |
Not really. |
| 12 |
One needs to use some common sense as a developer in evaluating user |
| 13 |
CFLAGS - because there are plenty of flags that are safe, but aren't |
| 14 |
listed on that page. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Several years ago, I wrote a package that was the forerunner of the |
| 17 |
'Safe CFLAGS' page - genflags. It was close to unmaintable at the time |
| 18 |
however, so it's suffered a lot of bit-rot. With the advent of |
| 19 |
libcpuinfo, and x86info being written, it stands a much better chance of |
| 20 |
giving useful output, but that still does not supersede the common sense |
| 21 |
statement above. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 25 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 26 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives