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>