what i'm saying is that it's not our duty to debug gcc problems. that's the duty of the gcc developers. *they* should be downloading XEmacs, compiling with union type and the other options that produce a crash, and then figuring out what went wrong. if gcc is too buggy to support use-union-type, then we shouldn't use it. you gain absolutely nothing from using it except the compile-time checks -- thus, i recommend using it periodically as an error-catcher but not to run executables with it. even if we do spend a lot of time debugging the compiler error and figure out the problem, what do we do then? we can try to work around it, but the work-around will only function until the next gcc release, and then the crash will probably be somewhere else. ben ------- Original Message ------- On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 23:30:08 +0900 Stephen J. Turnbull?wrote: >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Wing <wing(a)666.com> writes: Ben> strupr and strlwr should be ansi, i think. Maybe they _should_ be, but they're not in glibc or libc on NetBSD that I can find. Cygwin libc != glibc or BSD libc. Anyway, that kind of thing is trivial to find, although annoying. Ben> often the precise point of the crash changes from build to Ben> build even with no code changes and identical build options, Ben> and the builds will sometimes randomly work and sometimes Ben> not. it would be a real effort to figure out what's Ben> compiling wrong. So are you seriously arguing that we should get rid of --use-union-type, or are you just saying you don't feel like debugging it? -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.