Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (mverd138.asia.info.net [61.14.31.138]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id j97KYhO0012644 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 13:34:44 -0700 Received: from wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com (wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.55.135]) by larry.melbourne.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id GAA24676; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:31:35 +1000 Received: from wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com (SGI-8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j97KVkkt5487816; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:31:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from nathans@localhost) by wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com (SGI-8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id j97KVjiG5542917; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:31:45 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:31:45 +1000 From: Nathan Scott To: Craig Rodrigues Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: xfsprogs patch 1 Message-ID: <20051008063144.B5532956@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> References: <20051007185443.GA57747@crodrigues.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20051007185443.GA57747@crodrigues.org>; from rodrigc@crodrigues.org on Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 02:54:43PM -0400 X-archive-position: 6356 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: nathans@sgi.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs Content-Length: 605 Lines: 19 On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 02:54:43PM -0400, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > Hi, > > Why is -O1 hardcoded in the CFLAGS for xfsprogs? > Since there already is a variable $(OPTIMIZER), can't > we just remove it? In the FreeBSD port for xfsprogs, > I remove it, since most FreeBSD ports are compiled with a > default optimization flag (-O2). We should probably fix this up now - the reason was about 4 / 5 years ago, some old version of gcc miscompiled xfs_db at -O2 and caused segfaults. But, its likely noone is using that old a gcc anymore, so we can safely remove this hack now I think. cheers. -- Nathan