From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv Message-ID: To: Anton Helm , djgpp AT delorie DOT com Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:57:40 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: changes in gcc-2.95? In-reply-to: <4.2.0.58.19990819095521.00a42240@hal.nt.tuwien.ac.at> References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12) Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On 19 Aug 99, at 10:12, Anton Helm wrote: > At 03:39 PM 8/18/99 +0200, you wrote: > >Hi, > > >Could someone tell me where I can find the user-visible changes > >(changes in usage) when I move from 2.81 to 2.95 ? > > I would be interrested in finding out what's the difference between > v2.95 and v2.95.1 which is already on our local GNU mirror > (source codes, not DJGPP binaries!!!). see http://gcc.gnu.org > Yesterday I had some discussions with a colleague about v2.95 and > he was very disappointed (although he used a different wording > which I'm not going to repeat here in the NG). > > He is working on a C++ program that computes a sequence of > binary numbers e.g., 100111011... (don't ask me for details, > I don't know). The program used to compile and run on a number > of unix systems both with native and GCC (2.8.1) and also DJGPP > and had equal results. > Now with GCC v2.95 he is getting different sequences of 1 and 0 > depending on the level of Optimization. I don't remember exactly > but I think he said the one matching the previous output is not > from the -O2 compiled binary. We have reproduced this effect on > DJGPP, Linux and Solaris running GCC v2.95. > It's wild guess but You may have run into pointer aliasing problems. You may check it by compiling sources using option (gcc-2.95.X only) -fno-strict-aliasing Search gcc mailing list for these problems (see: http://gcc.gnu.org)