I will not be upgrading to gcc 4.8 until it is at least stable enough
to be in Debian unstable. Just my 2 cents.

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, jordan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Then this is clearly a gcc bug.
>
> You might want to verify that yourself, before making that claim.
>
> I've already seen handfuls of bugs in other software that gcc-4.8.0
> kicks up, that 4.7.x did not. - so unless you are _positive_ it's a
> gcc bug ~ i wouldn't be asserting that it is, since it's also a
> possibility that your code (like any code) may contain bugs..
>
> just my 2 cents
>
> Jordan
>
>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:45 PM, jordan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The danger of -O3 (long gone, to my knowledge) is to the compiled
>>>> code, not the compiler. An internal compiler error is just that (or
>>>> faulty hardware).
>>>
>>> James (the OP) never mentioned what version of gcc he is using, but if
>>> it is 4.8.0 (which i expect might be the case) then yes, NON- code
>>> fails to compile... and you are also wrong to suggest stricter and
>>> heavier optimization levels won't potentially break compilation or
>>> cause undesired behavior (ie: "danger"), it does and will, depending
>>> on a variety of factors.
>>>
>>> anyway, James is correct, I have verified exactly what he has written
>>> ~ using -O2 allows non-daw and friends to compile (with gcc-4.8.0).
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> jordan
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, James Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> just a note. i tried to build the non-* stuff and it failed with a
>>>>> internal compiler error. saw that you're using -O3 optimazation which i
>>>>> know is (from when i once used gentoo) frowned upon in some circles. i
>>>>> disabled it (via nano as i don't know waf well enough to do otherwise)
>>>>> and was able to build all the non-* stuff without further-ado.
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry i can't test any of this stuff out further, just wanted a quick
>>>>> peek. sadly no time for doing anything requiring deep involvement on pc
>>>>> these days.
>>>>>
>>>>> james.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Reply via email to