Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Re: GCC 2.96 optimization bug
From: Ian Holsman <ianh@cnet.com>
To: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com>
Cc: rbb@covalent.net, Cliff Woolley <jwoolley@virginia.edu>,
        dev@apr.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <20010624200702.G25512@ebuilt.com>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.32.0106241939000.6724-100000@mamba.cs.Virginia.EDU>
	<Pine.LNX.4.30.0106241912350.1647-100000@koj.rkbloom.net>
	<20010624200702.G25512@ebuilt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: 25 Jun 2001 08:16:06 -0700
Message-Id: <993482166.26456.0.camel@griffon.cnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0

On 24 Jun 2001 20:07:02 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> FWIW, I can't seem to reproduce the problem now.  I know that I was
> getting odd things last night, but I can't seem to get it to happen
> again today.  Grr.  I feel silly.  I could put a note in the STATUS 
> file that we've seen some oddities with GCC 2.96.  I swear I wasn't
> making it up - I *was* getting segfaults because it was trying to
> allocate too much memory (the size returned from elem_size() was
> corrupt).

There was a update to GCC from redhat over the weekend, did you
apply that patch perhaps?

-- 
Ian Holsman 
Performance Measurement and Analysis
CNET Networks
PH: (415) 364 8608