Re: GCC 2.96 optimization bug

2001-06-25 Thread rbb
Thoughts? Should we just avoid this problem and tell anyone using a default install of Mandrake that they are screwed? Or, do we just disable compiler optimizations with gcc 2.96? -- justin We shouldn't have to work around bugs in beta versions of the compiler. If somebody is

Re: GCC 2.96 optimization bug

2001-06-25 Thread Ian Holsman
On 24 Jun 2001 20:07:02 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: FWIW, I can't seem to reproduce the problem now. I know that I was getting odd things last night, but I can't seem to get it to happen again today. Grr. I feel silly. I could put a note in the STATUS file that we've seen some

Re: GCC 2.96 optimization bug

2001-06-25 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 08:16:06AM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote: There was a update to GCC from redhat over the weekend, did you apply that patch perhaps? I didn't touch anything. That's what makes it odd. It didn't work, and now it does. -- justin

Re: GCC 2.96 optimization bug

2001-06-24 Thread Dale Ghent
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: | I just ran across a compiler bug when dealing with long long in the GCC | shipped with Mandrake 8.0 (Intel). When -O2 is specified (it's in the | default), it seems to lose the upper 32 bits of the 64 bit integers. | (I was playing with the XML

Re: GCC 2.96 optimization bug

2001-06-24 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Dale Ghent wrote: When Apache was compile sans -O2, everything worked well and there was no segfault. What about -O? You're right... because of a 2.96 snapshot was used in RH, the use of 2.96 (I'm assuming any snapshot. I see that your's was older than mine) should

Re: GCC 2.96 optimization bug

2001-06-24 Thread rbb
I just ran across a compiler bug when dealing with long long in the GCC shipped with Mandrake 8.0 (Intel). When -O2 is specified (it's in the default), it seems to lose the upper 32 bits of the 64 bit integers. (I was playing with the XML code in apr-util and the return values from