Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 05:15:37PM +0000, Gunnar Evermann wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > > I know that one. It smells like a compiler bug.
> > >
> > > Please try compiling with --use-union-type and tell us if it changes a
> > > thing.
> > or even better: run under dbx and find out where it is hanging. If it's a
> > bug in XEmacs, we're happy for the info; if it is a bug in cc, SUN is
> > happy, for the testcase...
> Out of curiosity, may I know what makes you think your approach would
> be better?
Uhm, sorry, no offence intended, maybe I misunderstood yur advice.
I admit, I have never seen (or heard of) the above symptoms/bug, so
maybe I shouldn't have commented. It's just that I feel that it's
dangerous to have a separate set of required configure switches for
each build environment.
I remember the last time Georg tried builds on 2.7 (64bit I think). He
got weird crashes (which I (but apparently nobody else) could
reproduce on 2.6). Somebody remarked that he had no problems on
Solaris when using
'some-combination-of-uniontype-minimal-tagbits-whatever' which proved
true for Georg (and me) as well. We could very well have left it at
that, but there was still a bug in XEmacs which I finally tracked
If we find some kind of reproducable problem/crash we should IMHO
track it down and not try to find some configure incantation to cover
it up. (Actually I think we already had this debate some time
ago). IMHO (reproducible) core dumps are the best thing for the
If we suspect a compiler bug, we should try to pinpoint it and contact
the vendor. If this was indeed the plan, I apologize and stay out of
this debate with my 'smart remarks' :-)
In this special case I was hoping, if it was really a compiler bug,
Charles was in a much better position to get it fixed than any of us.