[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault
From: |
Felix Breuer |
Subject: |
Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault |
Date: |
23 Oct 2002 18:06:48 +0200 |
Hello!
> > C(XX)FLAGS Flags:
> >
> > GCC (1) : -O0 -g -ggdb
> > GCC (2) : -mmmx -O3
> > GCC (3) : -march=pentium4 -mmmx -msse -msse2 -mcpu=pentium4 -O3
> >
> > TM (1) : -g -ggdb
> > TM (2) : -O3
> > TM (3) : -O3 -fexpensive-optimizations -fno-exceptions
> >
> >
> > Results:
> >
> > | TM (1) | TM (2) | TM (3) |
> > --------+------------+------------+------------+
> > GCC (1) | works | works | segfaults |
> > --------+------------+------------+------------+
> > GCC (2) | works | segfaults | segfaults |
> > --------+------------+------------+------------+
> > GCC (3) | works | segfaults | segfaults |
> > --------+------------+------------+------------+
>
> Thanks for this very valuable information.
>
> Which version of guile did you use?
I used guile 1.4-r3.
>
> Would it be possible for you to make a similar
> comparison for different versions of Guile?
I'll see if I get around to do that. These extensive recompilations take
a *lot* of time... :)
>
> What to you mean by "an optimized g++ 3.2"?
> In other words, what did you do in order to compile g++?
I compiled gcc-3.2 using gcc-3.2 and the flags described above. I.e. I
had gcc-3.2 build three differently optimized versions of itself. The
first gcc-3.2 was not optimized, the second was medium optimized and the
thrid heavily optimized. "an optimized gcc-3.2" refers to the flags used
when building gcc-3.2 itself (with gcc.3.2). The other flags "TM (1),
(2), (3)" refer to the flags used when building TeXmacs (with the
gcc-3.2 built using "GCC (1), (2), (3)" flags).
A diagram:
builds builds
GCC 3.2 ---------------> GCC 3.2 --------------> TeXmacs
using GCC (X) using TM (Y)
I hope this makes things clearer.
>
> As to myself: I compiled g++ using gcc 2.95.3 without any special options
> on a RedHat 7.2 system. I compiled TeXmacs without any special options
> (i.e TM(3)) and the result seemed to work fine (I waited one hour for
> a hypothetical crash while loading and editing a few files)...
You wouldn't have to wait so long. The segfaults I experienced occurred
reliably right after every save or autosave.
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, (continued)
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Joris van der Hoeven, 2002/10/22
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Igor V. Kovalenko, 2002/10/22
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Joris van der Hoeven, 2002/10/22
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Igor V. Kovalenko, 2002/10/23
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Igor V. Kovalenko, 2002/10/27
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Joris van der Hoeven, 2002/10/27
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Igor V. Kovalenko, 2002/10/27
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Joris van der Hoeven, 2002/10/27
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Felix Breuer, 2002/10/23
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Joris van der Hoeven, 2002/10/23
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault,
Felix Breuer <=
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Joris van der Hoeven, 2002/10/11
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, David Allouche, 2002/10/15
[Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Igor V. Kovalenko, 2002/10/13
[Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault, Igor V. Kovalenko, 2002/10/15