From:	greve AT rs1 DOT thch DOT uni-bonn DOT de (Thomas Greve)
Subject:	How safe is -O2?
To:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Date:	Fri, 15 May 92 17:49:41 NFT
Status:	O

Hello DJ, hello all,

while playing around with g++, classes etc (i'm yet learning C++) i
ran into two sorts of trouble:
- The regex module is missing in libgcc. i didn't find the sources
  either, so i took them from libg++-2.0. I'll let you know, if they
  work 'as is' or if there have to be patches applied. (But this is
  not serious)
- When trying to recompile libgcc, cc1plus stumbled over fix.cc in
  $(gcc)/libsrc/gcc/gpp when started with -O2. It just interrupted
  it's work half way, return code 1. No error msg, nothing. fix.cc
  can be compiled with -O, though. What happened? (There was enough
  paging space, HD space for the tmp-files etc. Nothing of the trivial
  kind...)
- gcc ignores the `temp' variable, if there is a drive letter in it.
  (eg: g:/tmp is ignored, /tmp is not.)
  If there is a /tmp-directory in the current drive, gcc uses it, if
  there is no valid temp variable set. So you can JOIN your /tmp-disk
  there, if you want to. (What about the tcc-compiled gcc? I'm
  interested, too!) gcc tells you about this, if you set the -v
  option.
- When i installed libg++ on this (rs6k)-machine, gcc failed the C++
  test in libg++/test-install. Or at least it seemed to (the output
  differed from their expected.out). To have a reference to compare
  with i ran this test program with djgpp. (i trusted this port to be
  a reference... hear this, DJ? :-) But it failed. This time it was
  obvious. Here is the output:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constructing Foo(1) "static_foo2"
Initializing Foo(2) "static_foo2" with Foo(1)
Destructing Foo(1) "static_foo2" (remaining foos: 1)
Constructing Foo(2) "static_foo1"
Initializing Foo(3) "static_foo1" with Foo(2)
Destructing Foo(2) "static_foo1" (remaining foos: 2)
Constructing Foo(3) "automatic_foo"
Constructing Foo(4) "default-foo"
Initializing Foo(5) "default-foo" with Foo(4)
Destructing Foo(4) "default-foo" (remaining foos: 4)
Constructing Foo(5) "other_foo1"
Constructing Foo(6) "other_foo2"
Copying Foo(5) "other_foo1" to Foo(6)
Destructing Foo(6) "other_foo1" (remaining foos: 5)
Destructing Foo(5) "other_foo1" (remaining foos: 4)
Destructing Foo(5) "default-foo" (remaining foos: 3)
Destructing Foo(3) "automatic_foo" (remaining foos: 2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two destructors not called at the end of the program. Apart
from this, the output is the same as the one produced by the gcc/rs6k.
(Ok, the order of static objects being built is different, but this is
not serious, is it? It seems, there are some intermediate objects
being created by gcc 2.0, that are not 'expected' to produce output.)

What do we learn from this? Is there a general bug in gcc (especially
in cc1plus) DJ cannot be blamed for or is the expected.out not what
should be expected (according to ANSI C++ 2.0)? And what about the two
missing destructors? There is an `atexit'-sort of procedure not called
at the end of the program, isn't it?

				- Thomas

   greve AT rs1 DOT thch DOT uni-bonn DOT de
   unt145 AT dbnrhrz1

- Raw text -