Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:22:49 +0200 From: Ronald de Man To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: K7 potentials Message-ID: <19990709032248.A19539@win.tue.nl> References: <19990708233158 DOT B24204 AT cerebro DOT laendle> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 Precedence: bulk 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