On 08/08/09 2:41 PM, "Michael Petch" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Didn't work for me either. Looking at the generated assembler it is clear > one of the memory accesses of pm gets optimized away in the loop. The > volatile keyword on pm works, and I believe is the best solution as well. > If this works for others, can I recommend a Windows release get generated as well. Bgonliners (Keene specifically) were the first to believe there may be an issue, and would be nice to get them a resolution. Michael _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? Zulli, Louis P
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? Michael Petch
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? Ingo Macherius
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? Christian Anthon
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? Michael Petch
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? Ingo Macherius
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? Baselin... Christian Anthon
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? Baselin... Christian Anthon
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? Ba... Philippe Michel
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug... Michael Petch
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug... Michael Petch
- Re : [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bu... Massimiliano Maini
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug... Christian Anthon
- [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? Øystein Johansen
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? Øystein Johansen
