Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:45:21 +0000
From:      Jens Rehsack <rehsack@liwing.de>
To:        Holger.Kipp@alogis.com
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Gcc 3.2.2 vs gcc 3.2.3
Message-ID:  <3F6F0B01.7070805@liwing.de>
In-Reply-To: <200309221425.h8MEPWY68417@alogis.com>
References:  <200309221425.h8MEPWY68417@alogis.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Holger Kipp wrote:

...

> imho memtest seems to be suitable for this-is-real-broken-memory(tm) only.

Yes, memtest86 could only detect bad memory. No reported failure doesn't
says anything except memtest86 didn't found any error.

> It might be that due to differnent optimisations (gcc 3.2.2 vs gcc 3.2.3) 
> you might escape the bitpatterns that would otherwise trigger the sig 11.

There're several bugs known in gcc-3.2, some of them are removed in
gcc-3.3, some of them are scheduled to be fixed in gcc-3.4.
The best recommendation to optimization (if you don't want to research
atr gcc.gnu.org) is using -O and not more.

Regards,
Jens



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F6F0B01.7070805>