www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: pgcc/1999/07/08/07:58:25

Message-ID: <A451D5E6F15FD211BABC0008C7FAD7BC011703C7@nl0006exch003u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Man, Ronald De (Ronald)" <man AT lucent DOT com>
To: "'pgcc AT delorie DOT com'" <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)
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

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019