Understood. It's code I inherited and would require a great deal of time time wade through. I'm contracting and don't have the time now.
---Jan On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 June 2011 10:01, Jan Chludzinski: >> Just finished compiling some numerical code (developed using the >> Borland C++ compiler) using G++ 4.3.4 (that came with Cygwin 1.7). The >> answers are different from what I get using the Borland compiler >> (circa 2002). I have known correct answers from some NASA code and >> compare against those. >> >> I've transitioned of late to Code::Blocks using the latest MinGW. >> MinGW comes with G++ 4.5.2. I compiled using this compiler and it >> once again works (I get the same answers as the NASA code). >> >> Are there known problems with G++ 4.3.4? > > This mailing list is for discussing development of gcc, so your > question is inappropriate here, please send questions about using gcc > to gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org, thanks. > > Your question is far too vague, there are some known problems with > 4.3.4, as with all versions. Are they the cause of your problem? Who > knows. You didn't say what's different and you didn't say how you're > invoking the compiler. (My guess is you're running on x86 and not > using -mfpmath=sse.) > >> BTW, the original code was infinite looping until I replaced the old style: >> >> for (i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) .. >> >> with i declared within the routine (i.e., function) with: >> >> for (int i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ... > > Again, that's too vague for anyone to give a meaningful answer, but > please take any questions about it to gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org, or if you > think it's a bug, see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for instructions on > reporting a bug. >
