On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:51:55AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote: > I get it with -O2 (-Os implies -O2, so it's probably the same problem). Not quite. -0s ==> all the -O2 optimizations that do not increase code size. -Os can also perform other optimizations not part of -O2 that decrease code size. The -Os ==> -O2 only tells you how "risky" in optimizing -Os is willing to be. -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4) Maxim Sobolev
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4) Dan Nelson
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4) Donn Miller
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_... Jeffrey J. Mountin
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4) Maxim Sobolev
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4) David O'Brien
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_... Dan Nelson
- Re[2]: gcc -Os optimisation broken (... Maxim Sobolev
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4) Christian Weisgerber
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_4) Doug Barton
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (RELENG_... Donn Miller
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (REL... David O'Brien
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken... Christian Weisgerber
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation br... Jeffrey J. Mountin
- Re: gcc -Os optimisatio... Doug Barton
- Re: gcc -Os optimisation broken (REL... Doug Barton