Date:	Sun, 16 Apr 2000 10:31:56 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Dieter Buerssner <buers AT gmx DOT de>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: THE -O2 PROBLEM
In-Reply-To:	<8d9okd.3vs7iub.0@buerssner-17104.user.cis.dfn.de>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000416103107.2482c-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 15 Apr 2000, Dieter Buerssner wrote:

> \begin{rant}
> I still think, it is stupid, that gcc made this non back compatible
> change with the clobbered input registers.

I agree.  Breaking back compatibility is a Bad Thing.  Unfortunately,
the present GCC development team has proven time and again that they
are not very eager to keep back compatibility.

> In the FAQ I read:
> 
> |GCC 2.95 became more picky about some invalid use of clobber specifiers
> 
> This is a bit of an euphism. Code, that was written according to
> the documentation, just stopped to work. What is invalid now, was
> not invalid with earlier versions of gcc. 

The FAQ quotes the ``party line'' (from the GCC FAQ, actually).  I
didn't want to make the FAQ a playground for the (in)famous
cathedral/bazaar controversy...

- Raw text -