From xemacs-m  Sat Jan 11 23:20:12 1997
Received: from atreides.mindspring.com (atreides.mindspring.com [204.180.142.236])
          by xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id XAA29739 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 23:20:11 -0600 (CST)
Received: (qmail 1007 invoked by uid 52477); 12 Jan 1997 05:20:06 -0000
Sender: sj@atreides.mindspring.com
To: XEmacs beta <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: More on XEmacs-20.0-b90 on Linux 2.0.27
References: <199701120502.AAA11484@the-great-machine.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.100)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Sudish Joseph <sudish@mindspring.com>
Date: 12 Jan 1997 00:20:06 -0500
In-Reply-To: Jered Floyd's message of Sun, 12 Jan 1997 00:02:20 EST
Message-ID: <yviag207h3ll.fsf@atreides.mindspring.com>
Lines: 13
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.80/XEmacs 20.0

Jered Floyd writes:
>> > Configured for `i586-unknown-linux2.0.27'.
>> > What compiler should XEmacs be built with?              gcc -O6
>> Is gcc -O6 safe under linux?

> *blush* Oops. No, no it isn't. I think I'll go crawl back under a
> rock now.

FWIW, I've been running recent betas at -O6.  The only backtrace I
sent in was reproducable without any optimization.  This is stock gcc
2.7.2.1.

-Sudish

