> you may be right, but it seems too easy to blame gcc. > a better fit for the facts so far would seem to me that > 9vx' locking is broken. the optimization may just > put > more pressure on broken locking.
I would certainly agree that the variability of the crashes feels like a mutual exclusion problem. The wide variety of effects of changing optimization seems to by trying really hard to tell us something. Of course, after two days of house-hunting I could probably convince myself that the phase of the moon is involved. BLS
