On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 05:42:34PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: > On 5/23/19 5:14 PM, Akira Urushibata via lfs-dev wrote: > > Many years ago I discovered that Glibc does not build with "gcc -O0" > > while conducting some experiments. If I remember correctly LFS was > > around version 5.1 or so at that time. The Glibc in LFS v.5.1 is > > version 2.3.3. > > > > I consulted my good friend Richard of Free Software Foundation. He > > conveyed my message to the Glibc developers. Their response was that > > the developers "consider -O2 the standard". Thus this message: > > > > # error "glibc cannot be compiled without optimization" > > > > My memory is sketchy but I recall that a certain form of inlined > > functions was a problem. > > > > I do not think that code that relies on optimization is a good idea. > > It is bad for portability and security. > > You can set CFLAGS, but it is not needed. I do not, but others do. > Generally I think that the upstream developers know what the best > optimizations should be for their applications and set that by default. > > -- Bruce > As the OP: I've updated my plans on what I want to do - if a package prefers to use -O3, I'll go with that. I'm currently updating my notes to try to make sure that builds *without* my own CFLAGS don't accidentally drop e.g. debug symbols. But I'm intending to use my own CFLAGS on almost everything I build in these tests.
ĸen -- Before the universe began, there was a sound. It went: "One, two, ONE, two, three, four" [...] The cataclysmic power chord that followed was the creation of time and space and matter and it does Not Fade Away. - wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Music_With_Rocks_In -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
