X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 02:46:17 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: G++ 4.3.4 (with Cygwin 1.7) vs.G++ 4.5.2 (with MinGW) ??? From: Jan Chludzinski To: cygwin-digest AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com 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