Subject: Re: Forwarded message from email@example.com
To: None <Mark.Andrews@nominum.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/11/2001 17:58:00
Yes, I did see the recommendation to have the compiler fixed, but as the
compiler is much slower to get updated in the NetBSD source tree, I opted
for a temporary fix not to optimize for this particular piece of the
It sounds screwy, and I will post a bug to the compiler group (once I figure
how...), but we need something that is not going to break *now*. Named
is a rather critical application.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 Mark.Andrews@nominum.com wrote:
# Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:27:23 +1000
# From: Mark.Andrews@nominum.com
# To: email@example.com
# Subject: Re: Forwarded message from firstname.lastname@example.org
# > > I need to construct a patch to the makefile for named to insure that
# > > optimisation is disabled.
# > That's the wrong approach. You need to send-pr the compiler. What
# > makes you sure this bug isn't going to hit anything else in the source
# > tree?
# > > I'm just curious, not trying to cause a problem with this, but if
# > > this has been a known issue with BIND vs. the compiler, why in the
# > > world hasn't the Makefile for it already been patched to force -O0?
# > > I mean, does nobody else out there do secondary zone transfers?
# > Mark, are you still listening? Do you know if the GCC people have a
# > fix for the problem, and is there documentation about when this bug
# > stings?
# No, I'm not actually on this mailing list. We (ISC/Nominum)
# to the best of my knowledge have not sent off a bug report or
# are aware of whether this bug is fixed in a later version of
# the compiler.
# We did recommend to the person who orignally reported it that
# they file a bug report against the compiler.
NetBSD: Twice the Bits-Clean of other Leading OSes.