On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:01:17AM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Are you sure it was actually compiled with -02? Did you check 'perl -V'?
Yep. Here's my latest perl -V:
------------------------
Summary of my perl5 (revision 5.0 version 8 subversion 3) configuration:
Platform:
osname=linux, osvers=2.4.23, archname=i686-linux
uname='linux vulcan 2.4.23 #1 wed dec 3 22:52:28 est 2003 i686 gnulinux '
config_args='-de'
hint=recommended, useposix=true, d_sigaction=define
usethreads=undef use5005threads=undef useithreads=undef
usemultiplicity=undef
useperlio=define d_sfio=undef uselargefiles=define usesocks=undef
use64bitint=undef use64bitall=undef uselongdouble=undef
usemymalloc=n, bincompat5005=undef
Compiler:
cc='cc', ccflags ='-fno-strict-aliasing -I/usr/local/include
-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64',
optimize='-O2',
cppflags='-fno-strict-aliasing -I/usr/local/include'
ccversion='', gccversion='2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)',
gccosandvers=''
intsize=4, longsize=4, ptrsize=4, doublesize=8, byteorder=1234
d_longlong=define, longlongsize=8, d_longdbl=define, longdblsize=12
ivtype='long', ivsize=4, nvtype='double', nvsize=8, Off_t='off_t',
lseeksize=8
alignbytes=4, prototype=define
Linker and Libraries:
ld='cc', ldflags =' -L/usr/local/lib'
libpth=/usr/local/lib /lib /usr/lib
libs=-lnsl -lgdbm -ldb -ldl -lm -lcrypt -lutil -lc
perllibs=-lnsl -ldl -lm -lcrypt -lutil -lc
libc=/lib/libc-2.3.2.so, so=so, useshrplib=false, libperl=libperl.a
gnulibc_version='2.3.2'
Dynamic Linking:
dlsrc=dl_dlopen.xs, dlext=so, d_dlsymun=undef, ccdlflags='-rdynamic'
cccdlflags='-fpic', lddlflags='-shared -L/usr/local/lib'
Characteristics of this binary (from libperl):
Compile-time options: USE_LARGE_FILES
Built under linux
Compiled at Mar 11 2004 05:52:10
@INC:
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.3/i686-linux
/usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.3
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.3/i686-linux
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.3
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.2/i686-linux
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.2
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl
.
-----------------------
> No, that's not what I was suggesting. I suggested that you take the failing
> A-T as is, and start cutting chunks of the code leading to failure and
> retrying, untill you get a minimal case. This is much better than starting
> from the other side. Using that approach you have a constant failure, and
> you know that removing some code doesn't affect it.
I follow you. Will give it a go. Thanks for pushing me to find the root
of the problem.
William
--
Knowmad Services Inc.
http://www.knowmad.com
