From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QkcSW-0005Gw-Fc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:41:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE01D21C298; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpout.karoo.kcom.com (smtpout.karoo.kcom.com [212.50.160.34]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD4221C11C for ; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:40:27 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,252,1309734000"; d="scan'208";a="533441396" Received: from 213-152-39-90.dsl.eclipse.net.uk (HELO compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org) ([213.152.39.90]) by smtpout.karoo.kcom.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2011 14:40:27 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.102] (unknown [192.168.1.102]) by compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF347A9C73 for ; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:33:32 +0100 (BST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] New computer and Gentoo From: Stroller In-Reply-To: <4E283230.5030801@binarywings.net> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:40:25 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <525EAB29-5C24-4DF3-B91D-94BEEF519D7A@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> References: <4E27EF91.4060408@binarywings.net> <1311253852.29724.19.camel@moriah> <4E283230.5030801@binarywings.net> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 80d31b496ca7d01b1025e8bf5c567392 On 22 July 2011, at 07:45, Florian Philipp wrote: > Every "native" setting is just resolved by gcc at compile time to some > concrete setting like "core2".=20 Perfectly correct. On 21 July 2011, at 15:05, Florian Philipp wrote: > ... > (unless, of course, if the GCC guys get their switch-case logic = wrong). Unfortunately, this has been known to happen.=20 See GCC bug 48743. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D48743 Admittedly the affected CPU in that case is somewhat older, dated and = unfashionable. Hopefully such errors will be less common on newer CPUs, but we = shouldn't rule it out. Stroller.