Message-Id: <199903260510.AAA06260@indy3.indy.net>
From: "Steve Snyder" <ssnyder AT indy DOT net>
To: "PGCC Mailing List" <pgcc AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:08:58 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: PMMail 2.00.1500 for OS/2 Warp 4.00
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Bad e-mail addr on PGCC Web page
Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com

The e-mail address given in the first paragraph of the PGCC Support
Web page (http://www.gcc.ml.org/questions.html) is apparently inaccurate.

        "pgc AT goof DOT com"

Alas, the bad address is also the address to be used in reporting errors in
the PGCC Web page.  (Kinda recursive.)  That's why I'm posting this message
to the list rather than reporting it in private e-mail.

FYI.

==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE==================
>Return-Path: <>
>Received: from goof.com (goof.com [12.4.218.41])
>	by postal.indy.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id WAA20183
>	for <ssnyder AT indy DOT net>; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:56:35 -0500 (EST)
>Message-Id: <199903260356 DOT WAA20183 AT postal DOT indy DOT net>
>Received: (qmail 9116 invoked for bounce); 26 Mar 1999 03:56:03 -0000
>Date: 26 Mar 1999 03:56:03 -0000
>From: MAILER-DAEMON AT goof DOT com
>To: ssnyder AT indy DOT net
>Subject: failure notice
>X-UIDL: 40638236e9b99e8dadacd09dc9e837b6
>

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at goof.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<pgc AT goof DOT com>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path: <ssnyder AT indy DOT net>
Received: (qmail 9098 invoked from network); 26 Mar 1999 03:54:39 -0000
Received: from postal.indy.net (199.3.65.16)
  by goof.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 1999 03:54:39 -0000
Received: from indy3.indy.net (root AT indy3 DOT indy DOT net [199.3.65.14])
	by postal.indy.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id WAA19889
	for <pgc AT goof DOT com>; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:55:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury (ip209-183-84-91.ts.indy.net [209.183.84.91])
	by indy3.indy.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA01735;
	Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:54:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199903260354 DOT WAA01735 AT indy3 DOT indy DOT net>
From: "Steve Snyder" <ssnyder AT indy DOT net>
To: "Jeffrey A Law" <law AT anchor DOT cs DOT utah DOT edu>, "Marc Lehmann" <pgc AT goof DOT com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 22:53:13 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: "Steve Snyder" <ssnyder AT indy DOT net>
Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: PMMail 2.00.1500 for OS/2 Warp 4.00
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Optimization greater than -O2 when compiling compiler?

Back when v1.1.0 of egcs/pgcc was released, I asked one of you guys, Marc 
or Jeff, about the advisability of building the egcs/pgcc compiler with an 
optimization level greater than -O2.  I was strongly advised against it.

Now that it's 2 releases later, and considering all the bugs that have been
fixed since the v1.1.0 release, I'll ask the same question.  

How risky is it to build the egcs/pgcc compiler(s) with an optimization 
greater than -O2?  If cranking up the optimization is still a bad idea for 
the compiler executables, then how about just increasing it for the 
libraries?

I spend a *lot* of time running pgcc and would like it to run as fast as 
possible, but not if it means increasing the chances of it generating bad 
code.

Thank you.


*** Steve Snyder ***


===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE===================


*** Steve Snyder ***