X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:41:00 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: When will the next gcc come out From: Andy Koppe To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On 23 July 2010 09:24, Huang Bambo wrote: > The current gcc( 4.3.4 ) has some bug with O3 option. it will > optimized out some needed code in some case. > I meet this bug when I compile ACE library. > If I use O2 option, everything goes fine. Have you got any actual evidence for this being a bug in gcc rather than in your program? It's quite common that subtle program bugs get exposed differently by different optimisations. This might also be relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing_(computing)#Conflicts_with_optimization Andy -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple