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
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


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...