Alexander.Gorshenev at Sun.COM wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Roland Mainz wrote:
> > Kuldip Oberoi wrote:
> >> Roland Mainz wrote:
> >>> Sean Sprague wrote:
[snip]
> >> Access checking did improve with SS12 + latest patches (SS12 has support
> >> for x86), but if there are issues/RFEs, let us know. What improvements
> >> are you specifically looking for in XIPO?
> >
> > Erm... it should simply work (and not crash).
>
> file bugs, fule bugs, file bugs.
I filed two a few weeks ago...
> >> Good time to get RFEs/etc.
> >> in!
> >
> > One RFE would be a message system when/if the compiler does any
> > optimisations (and which one). I strongly miss the (Amiga) SAS/C feature
> > which was announcing informations like (you already have something like
> > this for loop paralisation (e.g. -xloopinfo)):
> > - Variable removed
> > - Variable datatype changed (e.g. local |int| reduced to |bool| when
> > only { 0, 1 } were used as value (and no pointer to this variable was
> > used))
> > - Code block removed, moved etc.
> > - Function inlined
> > - Function declared inline but not inlined
> > - Loop unrolled
> > <...and so on...>
> >
> > Such a system could greatly help finding bugs in the optimizer or at
> > least guess what the compiler was doing...
>
> man er_src, but in general I agree, it is not the best way to do it.
Is there a way to find differences between C89 compiler behaviour and
C99 compiler behaviour ? We currently have a serious problem where the
code fails in weired and unexpected ways when it is compiled as C99
application while compiling it as C89 application works Ok (again I miss
the SAS/C functionality here since it was precisely reporting when it
was doing an optimisation and a simple "diff" over the logs then
revealed the source of trouble...) ...
----
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
