X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
X-Yahoo-SMTP:	Uu383n6swBCEN1G9up0WSnxbvN8fCPmk
Message-ID:	<4DF6B3D4.9050406@cygwin.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:05:24 -0400
From:	"Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.10 ThunderBrowse/3.3.5
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: G++ 4.3.4 (with Cygwin 1.7) vs.G++ 4.5.2 (with MinGW) ???
References:	<BANLkTimb2p-n7gDbu1Ru_PPhBdBPgc96yg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<BANLkTimb2p-n7gDbu1Ru_PPhBdBPgc96yg@mail.gmail.com>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 6/13/2011 2:46 AM, Jan Chludzinski wrote:
> Just finished compiling some numerical code (developed using the
> Borland C++ compiler) using G++ 4.3.4 (that came with Cygwin 1.7).
> The answers are different from what I get using the Borland compiler
> (circa 2002).  I have known correct answers from some NASA code and
> compare against those.
>
> I've transitioned of late to Code::Blocks using the latest MinGW.
> MinGW comes with G++ 4.5.2.  I compiled using this compiler and it
> once again it works (I get the same answers as the NASA code).
>
> Are there known problems with G++ 4.3.4?
>
> BTW, the original code was infinite looping until I replaced the old style:
>
> for (i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ..
>
> with i declared within the routine (i.e., function) with:
>
> for (int i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ...

Try turning off optimizations or at least drop back to -O3.


-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -