On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 11:00:15PM +0900, R. Lahaye wrote: > > Hm. This could then be some optimization bug like re-using stackframes when > > it really should not. > > Could you try to remove any optimization (configure with -O0 or so) > > and/or look at the produced assembler code? > > Bingo! with "-O0" the SIGSEGV gone. With any higher optimizaton level, the > SIGSEGV returns. So is it then a bug in optimization, possibly related to > string?
Well... maybe. I don't know... > Sorry, I have idea how to investigate the assembler code. [g++ -S produces a .s which is the assembler source.] > May I leave it at this? Sure. > BTW: there's something wrong with the configure script. > When I do "configure --enable-optimization=-O0" I get in the message > at the end: > > C Compiler: gcc > C Compiler flags: -g -O2 > C++ Compiler: g++ (2.95.3) > C++ Compiler flags: -g -O0 -W -Wall > > For some reason the C compiler flags always are -O2, irrespective of the > value given to the configure script; is that correct? Hm... ask Jean-Marc. I set in such cases CXX_FLAGS to -O0 before running configure but I thing that's not the rihgt way... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
