This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Anyone want another `make check'er?


On Mon, 5 October 1998, 14:04:15, nix@esperi.demon.co.uk wrote:

 > Manfred Hollstein writes:
 > > On Sun, 4 October 1998, 00:55:45, nix-egcs@esperi.demon.co.uk wrote:
 > > 
 > >   BOOT_CFLAGS="-O9 -funroll-all-loops -g -march=pentium -mcpu=pentium -fomit-frame-pointer"
 > > 
 > > and
 > > 
 > >   "-O9 -march=pentium -mcpu=pentium -fomit-frame-pointer -g"
 > > 
 > > for both CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS?!
 > 
 > Hmm. As a matter of interest, why unroll-all-loops on the BOOT_CFLAGS
 > and not on the CFLAGS themselves? Are you trying to test egcs's
 > ability to bootstrap itself as well?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to do.

 > (btw, I'll probably be using
 > egcs-1.1b from the release tarball for bootstrapping, at least until I 
 > get the time to grab the 1.1 tree from CVS.)

That's fine.

 > 
 > I'll be adding --{enable,disable}-haifa to the configure lines as
 > well, of course.
 > 

Sure.

 > 
 > [1] similar enough for `diff' to be of some vague use, if possible...
 >     ... why? you never know. It could prove useful in the end.
 > 
 > -- 
 > `Suppose I manufacture band-aids. I sell them under the following
 >  license: "Buyer agrees to apply product only to his or her own body."'
 >   - Axel Boldt on commercial software licenses

manfred


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]