Date: Fri, 15 May 92 12:27:12 EDT
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT ctron DOT com>
To: greve AT rs1 DOT thch DOT uni-bonn DOT de
Cc: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Subject: How safe is -O2?
Status: O

>- 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...)

I compile with -O, not -O2, when building, but not for any particular
reason.

>- 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.

Interesting.  Try creating a `g' directory; maybe it thinks it's a
path!

>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?

It has been noted that cout doesn't flush on exit - it may be the same
problem.  Has anyone looked at atexit() to see if it has any bugs?

DJ
dj AT ctron DOT com
Life is a banana.