From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Sep 22 07:45:36 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC83F16A4B3
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.liwing.de (mail.liwing.de [213.70.188.162])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86AFB43FA3
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rehsack@liwing.de)
Received: (qmail 2923 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2003 14:45:21 -0000
Received: from stingray.liwing.de (HELO liwing.de) ([213.70.188.164])
          (envelope-sender <rehsack@liwing.de>)
          by mail.liwing.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <Holger.Kipp@alogis.com>; 22 Sep 2003 14:45:21 -0000
Message-ID: <3F6F0B01.7070805@liwing.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:45:21 +0000
From: Jens Rehsack <rehsack@liwing.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030821
X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Holger.Kipp@alogis.com
References: <200309221425.h8MEPWY68417@alogis.com>
In-Reply-To: <200309221425.h8MEPWY68417@alogis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: jsmith@drexel.edu
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Gcc 3.2.2 vs gcc 3.2.3
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:45:37 -0000

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