Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:05:01 -0500 (CDT) | | From | Chris Abbey <> |
| |
Today, Dan Hollis wrote: > but where would the finger start pointing then?
hmm... *compiler optimizations* for a specific family cause problems on that family, but *compiler optimizations* for a lesser family don't... I'll admit my kernel h4x0|^ 5k1!!s aren't on par with most on this list, but has anyone thought to take a look at the *compiler optimizations* that are generated? It sure wouldn't be a first if the combination of agressive optimizations and complex kernel code exposed a subtle and/or complex bug in one, the other, or both... and different levels of compiler might explain why some have the problems, and others don't. Having spent way too many hours this week looking at highly optimized 64bit ppc assembly I can only say that <drawl type=hick> them thar compiler hackors is devious lil twerps when yas ask fer all the bells n wistles. </drawl>
This of course is all assuming that one or more folks do recreate it on obviously good hardware. ;)
-- now the forces of openness have a powerful and unexpected new ally - http://ibm.com/linux
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |