At 09:14 PM 10/22/00, Horst von Brand wrote:
>Jurgen Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > You can blame it on the compiler which is included with RH7.0. It's a
> > pre-release version of some sort. It seems that the gcc people are not
> > happy that RH included this version with RH7.
>
>It is the *kernel's* fault, as far as can be ascertained now. The compiler
>is stricter, and implements new optimizations, for which the kernel (being
>only ever compiled with gcc) is just unprepared.
The problem, as I understand it, is that gcc-2.96 handles language
constructs slightly different than older compilers. This is a preprocessor
change, not an optimization problem.
To say "new optimizations ... kernel ... unprepared" is incorrect. Having
worked with compilers (some years ago), I always took it as an article of
faith that the same answer(s) would be generated whether optimization was
turned on or not. Optimization should always be a way to do a task either
quicker (fewer instructions executing, less executing time, etc) or shorter
(less memory needed for the instructions). Optimization should never,
never give a different result. Having new optimizations break an executing
program is simply wrong.
David
>--
>Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
--------------------------------------------------------
David Relson Osage Software Systems, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 514 W. Keech Ave.
www.osagesoftware.com Ann Arbor, MI 48103
voice: 734.821.8800 fax: 734.821.8800
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
