[distcc] Re: Miscompilation with -march=native
dirtyepic at gentoo.org
Wed Jun 11 02:54:02 GMT 2008
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:08:54 +0100
Maks Verver <m.verver at student.utwente.nl> wrote:
> On Monday 04 February 2008 03:39:56 Martin Pool wrote:
> > I agree, distcc should probably at least run these jobs locally, and
> > maybe print a message to tell you so. Im not so sure about
> > rewriting them.
> Yes, rewriting them is probably too hard to do reliably. Simply
> forcing jobs with -march=native or -mtune=native to run locally is
> easy enough; I've added a patch that does just that, which I tested
> Note that -mtune=native does not result in broken binaries, but it
> may result in code that is optimized for a different cpu than
> specified, so it's probably best to run jobs with this option locally
> as well.
Is there any interest in getting this into 3.0 or a future release?
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/distcc/attachments/20080610/e50623b4/signature.bin
More information about the distcc