Re: Give people with crashes more of a clue
William M. Perry writes:
Robert Pluim <rpluim(a)bigfoot.com> writes:
> I did say "If you have access ...". If we're not shipping it, either
> we should ship it, or put the information in something we do ship
> (README? INSTALL? The FAQ? [Hmm, we don't seem to ship the FAQ,
> either. Maybe we should]).
For some of the problems in PROBLEMS, I would vote for configure hacking to
make sure people don't even try to build XEmacs that way unless they know
what they are doing.
Hmm, I've just tested the skip-syntax-backwards crash recipe here with
gcc 2.8.1 at -O3, and it crashes. Maybe we need
*:sun4*:gcc_281|sun4*egcs_10*)
dnl Don't use -O2 or higher with gcc 2.8.1 and egcs 1.0 under SPARC
architectures
dnl without also using `-fno-schedule-insns'.
case "$CFLAGS" in
*-O[23456789]*)
case "$CFLAGS" in
*-fno-schedule-insns*) ;;
*)
and similarly for the other problems that depend on the optimization
level.
Robert
--
The above are my opinions,
and my opinions only.