Re: X.V11R3 vs. gcc - final round action? - Article 2054 - go-pugleaf

Article View: gnu.gcc.bug

Article #2054

Re: X.V11R3 vs. gcc - final round action?

#2054

From: Bob Sutterfield
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1988 07:18

9 lines
962 bytes

I also found that the 1.30 GCC optimizer couldn't handle
lib/Xt/TMParse.c any better than Sun's could (cc1 died, signal 11).  I
embellished the special case in lib/Xt/Imakefile just a bit, to ensure
that TMparse.o, debugger/TMparse.o, and profiled/TMparse.o were all
compiled without -O.

If you've got 1.31, all should be well.

I use "-O -traditional -fcombine-regs -fstrength-reduce -fwritable-strings".

Technical Details

Message-ID: <29729@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!telly!ddsw1!mcdchg!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu!bob

References: <8812170941.AA05283@poseur.Sun.COM> <Dec.18.00.06.07.1988.2204@athos.rutgers.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!telly!ddsw1!mcdchg!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu!bob
From: bob@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.bug
Subject: Re: X.V11R3 vs. gcc - final round action?
Message-ID: <29729@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 88 07:18:57 GMT
References: <8812170941.AA05283@poseur.Sun.COM> <Dec.18.00.06.07.1988.2204@athos.rutgers.edu>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science
Lines: 9

Reply to Parent Message