Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfsprogs\s+patch\s+1\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfsprogs\s+patch\s+1\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. xfsprogs patch 1 (score: 1): Author: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:54:43 -0400; 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; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00048.html (7,303 bytes)
2. Re: xfsprogs patch 1 (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:31:45 +1000; 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 anymor; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00049.html (7,663 bytes)
3. xfsprogs patch 1 (score: 1): Author: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:54:43 -0400; 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; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00189.html (7,303 bytes)
4. Re: xfsprogs patch 1 (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 06:31:45 +1000; 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 anymor; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00190.html (7,663 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]