Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!NEXTASY2.EECS.WSU.EDU!dwatola
From: dwatola@NEXTASY2.EECS.WSU.EDU (David Watola)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: cc compiler problems
Message-ID: <9104090229.AA27828@nextasy2.eecs.wsu.edu>
Date: 9 Apr 91 02:30:13 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 28
X-Unparsable-Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 19:29:34 GMT-5632:48


>
>There is nothing fancy in the included small C programs.  When compiled as
>"cc -o starnge strange.c" everything is OK.  But when I tried it as
>"cc -O -o strange strange.c"  than the Slab is gone - I mean totally gone.
>I would not even respond to the cmd-cmd-~ sequence.  The only way to recover
>it is by UNPLUG/PLUG!!!
>
>I don't think this can be called as a FEATURE or ANSI Standard.  So, what is
>the problem and where is the fix?  Anybody has any idea?
>

this point has been raised more than once, and has not been satisfactorily 
addressed.  i have looked at the optimized assembly code, and it looks fine.
very tight and easy to follow (esp. after you prune the garbage out of the c
program--that 'printf' really serves no  purpose at all).  The unoptimized
code is not quite as pithy.

i would like to try the assembly code out on another 68040 based machine, but
we don't have any others here... yet.  i kinda suspect that there may be a bug
in the assembler, but i just don't have the time to verify that...  does anybody
out there have the time and ability to do this?  it is a fairly trivial matter
to disassemble the code and compare to the .s file, but, hey, i have a thesis to
finish up RSN. 

i know people from next are
monitoring this group... it would seem that this would be something they'd
be interested in.