Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990819095521.00a42240@hal.nt.tuwien.ac.at>
X-Sender: tony AT dictator DOT nt DOT tuwien DOT ac DOT at
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:12:03 +0200
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: Anton Helm <tony AT dictator DOT nt DOT tuwien DOT ac DOT at>
Subject: Re: changes in gcc-2.95?
In-Reply-To: <wkwvutgqdl.fsf@mail.ndh.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

At 03:39 PM 8/18/99 +0200, you wrote:
 >Hi,

 >Could someone tell me where I can find the user-visible changes
 >(changes in usage) when I move from 2.81 to 2.95 ?

I would be interrested in finding out what's the difference between 
v2.95 and v2.95.1 which is already on our local GNU mirror
(source codes, not DJGPP binaries!!!).

Yesterday I had some discussions with a colleague about v2.95 and 
he was very disappointed (although he used a different wording 
which I'm not going to repeat here in the NG).

He is working on a C++ program that computes a sequence of 
binary numbers e.g., 100111011... (don't ask me for details,
I don't know). The program used to compile and run on a number
of unix systems both with native and GCC (2.8.1) and also DJGPP
and had equal results.
Now with GCC v2.95 he is getting different sequences of 1 and 0
depending on the level of Optimization. I don't remember exactly
but I think he said the one matching the previous output is not
from the -O2 compiled binary. We have reproduced this effect on
DJGPP, Linux and Solaris running GCC v2.95.

Tony