On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 12:18:10AM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > > I figured that. If you can, try compiling the same code with gcc-3.0 with > both -O and -O2 and see what it generates. We have a better shot at > correcting the problem if it still exists in 3.0.
With gcc-3.0 -O2, it's a lot worse. The last loop where the fault was observed is totally stuffed, e.g., the loop condition is now the first thing that gets tested after (disk <= 0). -O looks alright. -- Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
