> Anthony Towns ([email protected]) wrote: > > > Like the subject says; if I build ifupdown (0.6.4-1) on alpha with -O2 > > it breaks, if I build it with -O0, it's fine. With -O2, trying to trace > > what's going on with gdb doesn't seem to work (it jumps all over the > > place, fairly meaninglessly). > > > > In theory, ifupdown should just be a fairly normal ANSI C program. Most > > of the data structures aren't too complicated, and at worse there are > > a few function pointers. I think everything's fully typed, and there > > shouldn't be any weird casting. There was some buggy realloc's in the > > past (reallocing 4 bytes, instead of 4*sizeof(obj) bytes, mainly), > > but I believe they're all gone. > > I haven't looked at this (yet?), but I would guess it to be more bugs > in gcc 2.95 we are using. If you look at the gcc 2.96 changelog you'll > see there are quite a few bug fixes, a lot of them on Alpha. We've > been plauged with bad gcc optimization on Alpha for about as long as I > can remember. > > If no one knows for sure, I may have time in the next couple of days > to play with it and see. Chris Chimelis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is the one > to talk to about gcc bugs on Alpha. I would say either don't use -O2 > (duh) or use a different gcc (probably not gonna happen anytime soon). > > Ron
Just wanted to note I see a similar problem compiling the DAC960 driver in the 2.4 (2.2.X one works fine) kernel, with -O2 gcc segfaults, with -O0 it works. Sorry for not giving more information but my Alpha's at work right now and I'm not, I can send more on Monday if anyone want.
