[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: gcc4 vs gcc3: a case (kerTeX)
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 12:08:51PM -0800, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 11:50 AM, tlaronde%polynum.com@localhost wrote:
> >> Does "-O2 -fno-strict-aliasing" work better?
> >> C99's type-punning assumptions (implied by -O2 in gcc-4.x including
> >> -fstrict-aliasing) aren't safe with older code which worked fine with
> >> prior versions of the compiler.
> > Thanks for the tip, but in this case no: it doesn't work.
> OK. Too bad, but it was the most likely candidate and worth a try.
> If you wanted to triage the issue more carefully, you'd need to enable the
> various suboptions which are enabled by -O2 which are not in -O1 and figure
> out which one(s) are responsible.
If I found the time, I will try---just to be sure the code is correct.
But as noted, since it's translated C from Pascal, the result is not
specially "nice". But others mainly text processing programs work, this
one, more arithmetic, doesn't correctly.
Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
Main Index |
Thread Index |