der Mouse wrote:

> Abstractly, the same thing is true of inlining bcopy (a transformation
>
>with which this one was compared upthread).  As I see it, they were
>just as abstractly wrong there; they got away with it in practice
>because the historical behaviour matched the behaviour of the
>transformed version closely enough.  (Core dumps are core dumps; the
>major difference is that a frame is missing from the call stack, but
>apparently that bothers few enough people to not matter.)
>  
>
Hm, no frame on the call stack =? inability to tell what went wrong 
without compiling with
full debugging enabled?  That's what it seems to imply.

This seems wrong, at first glance, but nothing that -ffreestanding 
wouldn't solve,
I guess.

-- 
				--*greywolf;