From xemacs-m  Sun Feb  2 17:58:36 1997
Received: from altair.xemacs.org (steve@xemacs.miranova.com [206.190.83.19])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA15106
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:58:35 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from steve@localhost)
	by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA31156;
	Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:09:50 -0800
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: 20.0b93 linux problems
References: <u93evftabi.fsf@neal.ctd.comsat.com>
X-Url: http://www.miranova.com/%7Esteve/
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-Face: #!T9!#9s-3o8)*uHlX{Ug[xW7E7Wr!*L46-OxqMu\xz23v|R9q}lH?cRS{rCNe^'[`^sr5"
 f8*@r4ipO6Jl!:Ccq<xoV[Qz2u8<8-+Vwf2gzJ44lf_/y9OaQ`@#Q65{U4/TC)i2`~/M&QI$X>p:9I
 OSS'2{-)-4wBnVeg0S\O4Al@)uC[pD|+
X-Attribution: sb
From: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
In-Reply-To: Neal Becker's message of 02 Feb 1997 11:57:37 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.101)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 02 Feb 1997 16:09:49 -0800
Message-ID: <m2sp3eycky.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Lines: 24
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.8/XEmacs 20.0

Neal Becker writes:

> Built 20.0b93 on linux.  Same problem as previous few betas.  Segfault
> on startup.

> I tried system-malloc.  No diff.  Then I tried no optimization.
> Bingo.

> If compiled with only -g, not even -O, it runs OK.  This is
> libc-5.4.13.  gcc is 2.7.2 with the optimization bug fix.

Wasn't libc-5.4.13 cursed?  Does libc-5.4.17 work any better?

> Is is really a gcc optimization bug?  Maybe.  With a couple of well
> publicized exceptions, these have been extremely rare, particularly
> with only -O.  At any rate, why am I the only victim?  Should I try a
> different gcc?  What do others use?

It was recommended on the linux-kernel mailing list that even with the
`corrected' gcc-2.7.2's one should still use -fno-strength-reduce.

-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be billed at $250/message.

