If not a buffer overrun, perhaps a buffer/variable initialization (or lack thereof) issue? Where the variable ends up in memory could affect whether or not things work the way you expect, and I suppose that optimization changes could affect that. Just a thought. Thanks, Lyle -----Original Message----- From: gcc-help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gcc-help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Bentley Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:11 PM To: Eljay Love-Jensen Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Weird optimization bug...? Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. I was just referring to why I didn't think it was a buffer overrun. It makes perfect sense why it would change things with the optimizer involved :) (thought perhaps I am missing something wrt the buffer overrun...). Thanks for the pointers on the assembly generation. I'm having some trouble building with those options, so I'll get back to you when I've figured it out (or hit a brick wall :P). Thanks again, Adruab > Adrian Bentley On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 11:36, Eljay Love-Jensen wrote: > Hi Adruab. > > >However, if that was the case, inserting a random function into the code > certain shouldn't fix the problem :P. > > Inserting a random function into the code can affect the optimizer, which > can mask the problem. > > I recommend taking a look at the assembly file to see what's different > between having and not having the extra function present, in the optimized > code. > > You can use the "-save-temps" to keep the assembly file around, and > "-fverbose-asm" for extra blather. > > HTH, > --Eljay > > >
