From xemacs-m  Mon Feb 10 17:30:29 1997
Received: from cs.uchicago.edu (alexandria.cs.uchicago.edu [128.135.11.87])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA16501
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:30:28 -0600 (CST)
Received: from admiration.cs.uchicago.edu (admiration [128.135.164.32]) by cs.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA05038 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:30:26 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from csdayton@localhost) by admiration.cs.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) id RAA11256; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:30:26 -0600 (CST)
Sender: csdayton@cs.uchicago.edu
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: b93 dead on arrival
References: <199702102255.RAA08625@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> 	<m2ybcwtfrh.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <199702102323.SAA08664@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US>
X-Face: `X="Sg7A[PL3/_8;>>ggjOy&\KtWiH7.wQ>Y"hQ2fxSG9RkPTCT}&^()5[Gp(-DaTf:t`MSBt@Li_C9U@y#i/c?i$uLQ8[';I$mMAm_rZta>l`STW_aA5`iD[!80p#_qmN4#tMu[Pu7wkIi)5*4YXAhg)9R2-BAWPbVOzgE$Ib4QuZn0YaE~'C/7h^CTuPybz$u
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.101)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Soren Dayton <csdayton@cs.uchicago.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 1997 17:30:25 -0600
In-Reply-To: "Barry A. Warsaw"'s message of Mon, 10 Feb 1997 18:23:02 -0500
Message-ID: <xcdeneofdda.fsf@admiration.cs.uchicago.edu>
Lines: 19
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.9/XEmacs 20.0

"Barry A. Warsaw" <bwarsaw@anthem.cnri.reston.va.us> writes:

> >>>>> "sb" == Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:
> 
>     sb> O.K.  You have the same problem Vinnie Shelton reported.  What
>     sb> version of Gcc do you guys have?  Barry, could you try
>     sb> building with the SparcWorks compiler to see if that works any
>     sb> better?
> 
> I'm using 2.7.2.  Unfortunately it's the only C compiler I have on
> Sparc (I *really* need to remedy that soon).  I have access to an Irix
> 5.3 box with, I think, an SGI compiler.  Will try that and see what
> happens.

I have had a lot of problems with various installations of gcc 2.7.2
generating incorrect code on Solaris.  (it would claim that (1 + 1) == 1
with no optimization).

Soren

