On Wednesday 21 May 2003 09:10 pm, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 03:12:27PM -0400, Jon Lido wrote:
> > Yes, this was the problem. I rebuilt world with -march=pentium3 and that
> > did the trick.
> Honest question of you -- I'll assume you're subscribed to
> freebsd-current@. How have you missed all the warnings from myself and
> others not to trust the -march=pentium4 optimizations? I honestly want
> to know so we can figure out a better way of getting the word out.
I missed it in the volume of email on freebsd-current. When I started using
-current almost two weeks ago now, I browsed about a month's worth of the
mailing list archives.
I searched on gcc and libm in the list archives, but I didn't really connect
the rambling discussions with the problem I was seeing. I admit that, in
hindsight, it should have been pretty obvious.
> > I'm not sure how CPUTYPE gets handled, but perhaps p4 should expand to
> > -march=pentium3, if possible.
> I feel some will screem if we take away the ability to use
> -march=pentium4 in places they know for sure will work. Unix is about
> mechanisms, not policy.
Well, we've got a compiler here with a broken mechanism. Deciding whether or
not to act on it sounds like a policy decision to me. I just hope 5.1
doesn't get shipped with such an easy way to break stuff.