So I looked at the assembly and didn't find anything super glaring. The compiled code was very different, so I'm not surprised the result is different. I haven't gotten any closer to figuring out what kind of mis-optimization it's doing (or if it's something else totally bizarre). Any other pointers for narrowing it down, or should I just hack it and wait for a new version of gcc to come out :). Thanks again, Adruab 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 > > >
