Thx guys, I have reversed the code in a cleaned up version and added the volatile keyword.
Christian. On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Michael Petch<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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
