On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 10:59 -0500, Simon Perreault wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > So, the only results of recommendations to trust when it comes to > > packaging binaries for a distro is those who are deeply familiar with > > the guts of the OS, in case of Fedora, RH's GCC, glibc and kernel > > developers. > > This is BS. Beg your pardon? > Sure, people have thought about the defaults, but it doesn't > mean that the packager doesn't know what he's doing either. Rest assured: In 99% of all cases they don't know. They test on their "Pentium IV" and claim something - They can't have any clues about what happens on a sparc, an i586 and AMD X2 <what the heck>, or a ppc something. > Some > software, particularly numerical computation stuff, is built for being > optimized properly. There are some extreme cases where using -O2 instead > of -O3 simply makes a piece of software useless (take Blitz++ for example). In other words: Crappy non-portable SW, > Using -O3 in specific cases isn't that big of a deal. It is - It renders debugging impossible on many systems, strict-aliasing silently kills SW on some targets, it might trigger exotic target-specific bugs etc. etc. As part of the distro you can't to compromise between different trade-offs. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
