> Horsecocky. If EGCS is producing bogus code, that's a bug in your C, in
EGCS
> or in your headers. I'd wager in the C. In the past nearly six years of
> developing Ogg, I've found one gcc bug, no egcs bugs, two Linux libc
header
> bugs and one libc bug. Each one was exactly that-- A bug, not evil
voodoo.
> There are plenty of ways to write bad C that will seem OK in -O0, and then
> break under optimization because it violates ANSI.
>
> I'm probably arguing semantics (I suspect we actually agree), but I wanted
to
> pipe up and make the point clear.
>
> Monty
Compilers sometimes have bugs, and gcc and egcs have some (even some in
common). That's why there are some new release, no?
I'm talking about real bugs. Hopefully, sometimes the compiler is smart
enough to see that it has some bugs: "internal compiler error, please submit
a bug report". You've never seen it? It's very rare, but sometimes
happens... (I only saw 1 bug with -O9 under gcc, and 1 internal compiler
error under both gcc and egcs during the past years)
Regards,
Gabriel Bouvigne - France
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
icq: 12138873
MP3' Tech: www.mp3tech.org
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
