From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Wed Dec 9 09:20:46 2009 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5KJRnF3f+fpy9FV8yW48BX+sjCF0MHy4IaWbap8jhdg=; b=Fs7vCk5h2ULqcRN2VyjuX+Sp+ukftQocmFpMDtpPw9JbSCNBOxvh7MISH/Nc9jUKVC ckYD+92jklv/pupxIPvL+aTo4FkHK0qrQv/BMx7KPUcPZw+i7qvyVF352Ii/g+zndkTc +yNqgEoLeF8SdNQjecY8oFOyQrhXAxspO9iKE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=oK84ndRKt6HiIcV9iZP/yI5uKxK6MrddOrnfsivRhgc/7st8ACJn/xZU2e8FtOc4zA FLLFRXYj6Yty6VOOFlJGM1pALeHvuWBMJ00n3wcZLINMdXUH+pwWR5uD/9BV+5DTwaLh rcwz6yTtaR/VM2cFnTsuykQPjf5MW49h47uYw= Message-ID: <4B1FB1D4.70704@freesbee.fr> Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:19:00 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Vincent_Rivi=E8re?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: Re: [MiNT] XaAES sources for FreeMiNT 1.16.3 References: <11a6f2b10911270646s6ceab50i915d71aeb27f6be9@mail.gmail.com> <1260278588.20336.221.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <4B1E5596.9010300@freesbee.fr> <200912082209.08699.oak@helsinkinet.fi> <4B1FAB84.1000009@atari-source.org> In-Reply-To: <4B1FAB84.1000009@atari-source.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: vincent.riviere@freesbee.fr Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Mark Duckworth wrote: > I've never seen a GCC ICE that wasn't some kind of unreliable hardware > problem. I used to get them when my falcon was overclocked too high. Just for the pleasure of contradicting you, there is a bunch of possible causes of GCC failures or other crashes. Just have a look at the current regression list: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=4.4&target_milestone=4.3.5&target_milestone=4.4.3&known_to_fail_type=allwordssubstr&known_to_work_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&gcchost_type=allwordssubstr&gcchost=&gcctarget_type=allwordssubstr&gcctarget=&gccbuild_type=allwordssubstr&gccbuild=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&priority=P1&priority=P2&priority=P3&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= I don't want to say here that GCC is bad software. Like any software, it has bugs. And 99.5% of the time, it works very well. It has not more bugs than other software of the same size, it has just the honesty to have a public list of bugs. Closed-source software is not less buggy because the bugs are not well-known. -- Vincent Rivière