From: Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Exe size!!!
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 22:25:38 -0400
Organization: BrunNet
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <37422122.6EDD81BF@unb.ca>
References: <19990517192930 DOT 17703 DOT 00001862 AT ng-ba1 DOT aol DOT com> <87ogji4ll3 DOT fsf AT hasn DOT dera DOT gov DOT uk> <W1o03.1042$Uh4 DOT 279 AT newsr1 DOT elp DOT rr DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftnts2c2.brunnet.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

@elp.rr.com wrote:

> It actually might not be the code, i tried it myself. Without using -O2 the
> program works fine but with it
>     the graphics do get screwed up.  gcc may just optimizing what it thinks
> is right, but isn't. If it don't work. don't do it

    I had a problem like that, a LONG time ago.  I made an image processor, and
it gave a different output image when -O2 was used.  There are 2 main
possibilities:
1)    gcc is optimizing in a way it shouldn't.
2)    Your [my] code is written using unintended side-effects of some actions
which are optimized out of the program.

    I don't know which one is the correct one, but it is always easier to blame
someone other than yourself.

--
     (\/) Endlisnis (\/)
          s257m AT unb DOT ca
          Endlisnis AT HotMail DOT com
          ICQ: 32959047