From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Dec 8 17:11:56 2009 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Qul0molikclxaosvgSxTiKZVT9xnVbP67p45QkmE3dw=; b=uBQXJpHKuoaDtXU4r7N/augNFLtggl8rHYQZ2jCLD8dmRXLWUSiZ3YaZphiBljwJtx QHfLW6qN7ezkpoVHrjfSNTfxY2EPsy4HTzLlPjTUSAnMIMGeRmwegjYaKsS+wOaJ0lDe RxBPLYgDKPaQrOoZSuBUIGFcaEp2XVBAq30qk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=AARVdtsV5CoTbW0Y2k6qVyQtdaPAlQOgAGjzRsak7PQ7TSyfXKqRSSwDuinJyEg9rG kBYNncVu90BMPsdb2PkQzZ0ax8Vxn8hhdOqtDehjJjqlDmYaPgRoKFD9oyZ8kth+0K9V S5ffGpniAwDZzcd2LhQrWHjRJd6JWpWdCLV6c= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <200912082209.08699.oak@helsinkinet.fi> References: <11a6f2b10911270646s6ceab50i915d71aeb27f6be9@mail.gmail.com> <1260278588.20336.221.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <4B1E5596.9010300@freesbee.fr> <200912082209.08699.oak@helsinkinet.fi> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:09:52 +1100 Message-ID: <11a6f2b10912081409mbaf7d96t575d94963e942d0e@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [MiNT] XaAES sources for FreeMiNT 1.16.3 From: Paul Wratt To: mint Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: paul.wratt@gmail.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.sparemint.org id nB8MBuj1012225 On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Eero Tamminen wrote: > Hi, > > On Tuesday 08 December 2009, Vincent Rivière wrote: >> Alan Hourihane wrote: >> > One of the easiest things to do is add -fno-strict-aliasing and see if >> > that helps. If that does it should be pretty easy to track down. >> >> Exactly. >> >> And if this not enough, all the -O options have to be removed. Most >> compiler issues disappear when all the optimizations are turned off. > > I wouldn't still call them issues in compiler... To be able to do > optimizations, compiler needs to be able to assume that the code > it's compiling is correct. If the code isn't correct, funny things can > happen after optimizations. > > >> But the real cause is usually a hidden bug in the sources of the >> problematic software. We can't exclude a compiler bug, too, but it is >> more rare. > > I think during well over ten years of programming C-code, I've seen only > couple of issue that were bugs in GCC code generation and not in the > compiled C-code and those have been associated with support for some > new architecture / instruction set in it. > > GCC C++ side has AFAIK had more issues, but I don't really code C++, > so I've been saved from those. GCC can also sometimes terminate to > an ICE i.e. internal compiler error, but those don't generate bad code > and are also exceedingly rare. > ICE: Christos mentioned that, trying to compile "grconv", you wouldn't have in possible solutions, or "combinations" to look for, in solving it, as it sounds like a code change would fix that. Paul