Message-ID: From: "Man, Ronald De (Ronald)" To: "'pgcc AT delorie DOT com'" Subject: RE: K7 potentials Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:56:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com > At 10:10 PM 7/7/99 +0200, you wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 03:23:55PM +0100, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>> for crafty. linux versions of crafty are compiled using pgcc) >>But only with -O, as this gives the best results with long longs (sadly). > > Yeah bob told me that. i wonder why. what's -O2 doing above -O? > I think the reason is buggy optimizations in pgcc-1.1.3 when long longs are involved. -O2 activates more optimizations than -O. My chess program is also using long longs and is miscompiled by pgcc-1.1.3 as well. With pgcc-1.1.1 I do not experience problems. Some weeks ago I posted a tiny code fragment to this list that exhibited this problem. Is that the correct way to file bug reports? Is there any patch available for pgcc-1.1.3 to correct this bug? Or should I wait for pgcc-2.95? (If I'm not mistaken, egcs-2.95 should be released today.) Is the long long problem just so fundamental (for example caused by a deep bug in egcs-1.1.2) that a minor pgcc update should not be expected? >>> See specs Merced, note that merced has quite some >>> registers; work to do for the compilerfreaks! >> >>I never get tired of announcing the EPIC page at >>http://www.goof.com/pcg/epic/, which offers quite a bit information on >>that subject. >page not found! Try again, it works for me. Ronald