Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Compiler optimisation dependency?

2010-10-30 Thread tarantism
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 19:39 +0100, tarantism wrote: On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 16:19 +0300, Jyri Sarha wrote: On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, tarantism wrote: If I use compiler options -O0 or -O1, it works fine. If I use -O2 or -O3 I just get a sqwarking noise. Any ideas? How does the

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Compiler optimisation dependency?

2010-10-30 Thread Gibro Vacco
Hi, - Messaggio originale - On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 19:39 +0100, tarantism wrote: On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 16:19 +0300, Jyri Sarha wrote: On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, tarantism wrote: If I use compiler options -O0 or -O1, it works fine. If I use -O2 or -O3 I just get a sqwarking

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Compiler optimisation dependency?

2010-10-25 Thread Jyri Sarha
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, tarantism wrote: I'm building pulse under Scratchbox for Maemo 5 then copying the module-sine.so file to Nokia N900 to test. If I use compiler options -O0 or -O1, it works fine. If I use -O2 or -O3 I just get a sqwarking noise. Any ideas? How does the precompiled

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Compiler optimisation dependency?

2010-10-25 Thread tarantism
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 16:19 +0300, Jyri Sarha wrote: On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, tarantism wrote: If I use compiler options -O0 or -O1, it works fine. If I use -O2 or -O3 I just get a sqwarking noise. Any ideas? How does the precompiled module-sine.so from Maemo 5 work for you (it is

[pulseaudio-discuss] Compiler optimisation dependency?

2010-10-24 Thread tarantism
I'm building pulse under Scratchbox for Maemo 5 then copying the module-sine.so file to Nokia N900 to test. If I use compiler options -O0 or -O1, it works fine. If I use -O2 or -O3 I just get a sqwarking noise. Any ideas? ___ pulseaudio-discuss

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Compiler optimisation dependency?

2010-10-24 Thread Paul Menzel
Am Sonntag, den 24.10.2010, 19:37 +0100 schrieb tarantism: I'm building pulse under Scratchbox for Maemo 5 then copying the module-sine.so file to Nokia N900 to test. If I use compiler options -O0 or -O1, it works fine. If I use -O2 or -O3 I just get a sqwarking noise. Any ideas? What

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Compiler optimisation dependency?

2010-10-24 Thread tarantism
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 21:25 +0200, Paul Menzel wrote: Any ideas? What versions of PulseAudio and your tool chain do you use? PulseAudio 0.9.15 sbox-arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc (GCC) 4.2.1 ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 2.2.6 automake (GNU automake) 1.11.1 ... is that everything?

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Compiler optimisation dependency?

2010-10-24 Thread Paul Menzel
Am Sonntag, den 24.10.2010, 21:11 +0100 schrieb tarantism: On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 21:25 +0200, Paul Menzel wrote: Any ideas? What versions of PulseAudio and your tool chain do you use? PulseAudio 0.9.15 sbox-arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc (GCC) 4.2.1 ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 2.2.6 automake

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Compiler optimisation dependency?

2010-10-24 Thread tarantism
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 22:24 +0200, Paul Menzel wrote: Am Sonntag, den 24.10.2010, 21:11 +0100 schrieb tarantism: On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 21:25 +0200, Paul Menzel wrote: Any ideas? What versions of PulseAudio and your tool chain do you use? PulseAudio 0.9.15

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Compiler optimisation dependency?

2010-10-24 Thread Colin Guthrie
'Twas brillig, and tarantism at 24/10/10 21:36 did gyre and gimble: I suspect it's a toolchain issue but wondered if the 'optimisation causes data corruption' evidence rang any bells with people on here. I would also suspect the tool chain just from the description of the problem, but I can't