Date:	Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:22:49 +0200
From:	Ronald de Man <deman AT win DOT tue DOT nl>
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: K7 potentials
Message-ID:	<19990709032248.A19539@win.tue.nl>
References:	<A451D5E6F15FD211BABC0008C7FAD7BC011703C7 AT nl0006exch003u DOT nl DOT lucent DOT com> <19990708233158 DOT B24204 AT cerebro DOT laendle>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 0.95.4i
In-Reply-To:	<19990708233158.B24204@cerebro.laendle>; from Marc Lehmann on Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 11:31:58PM +0200
X-Operating-System:	Linux localhost 2.2.10
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 11:31:58PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 01:56:18PM +0200, Man, Ronald De Ronald" wrote:
> > I think the reason is buggy optimizations in pgcc-1.1.3 when long longs
> 
> no, the reason is plain slowness with -O2. I don't know wether this
> improved with the snapshots.

Ah, I see. Strange...

> > patch available for pgcc-1.1.3 to correct this bug? Or should I wait for
> > pgcc-2.95?
> 
> I won't usually patch releases after they are done, unless they are
> severly broken (like 1.1.2). When I fix bugs this is done only in
> the snapshots, so you might either have a look at them or wait until
> pgcc-2.95.

I think I'll just wait for now. I only have few problems with pgcc-1.1.3,
and even less with 1.1.1.

> 
> > (If I'm not mistaken, egcs-2.95 should be released today.)
> 
> I doubt that ;)

:(

> 
> > 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?
> 
> No, but I have too little time to backport fixes to the release. Its only
> a single person doing all the hacking!

I know, and you're doing great work!

Ronald

- Raw text -