kenc@madmax.Viewlogic.COM (Kenstir) (12/15/90)
I have recently compiled the TeX distribution from stanford and the basic conclusion is: it works with -O1 it doesn't with -O (same as -O2) Have people seen enough of these problems that I should be avoiding the use of -O altogether ? -- Kenneth H. Cox Viewlogic Systems, Inc. kenstir@viewlogic.com ...!harvard!cg-atla!viewlog!kenstir
kenc@madmax.Viewlogic.COM (Kenstir) (12/18/90)
In article <1990Dec14.131806@madmax.Viewlogic.COM>, I wrote: > I have recently compiled the TeX distribution from stanford > and the basic conclusion is: > > it works with -O1 > it doesn't with -O (same as -O2) > > Have people seen enough of these problems that I should > be avoiding the use of -O altogether ? Oops. I am running on a DECstation 3100 Ultrix 4.0 mips cc 2.0 -- Kenneth H. Cox Viewlogic Systems, Inc. kenstir@viewlogic.com ..!harvard!cg-atla!viewlog!kenstir
p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) (01/04/91)
In article <1990Dec17.121759@madmax.Viewlogic.COM> kenc@madmax.Viewlogic.COM (Kenstir) writes: >> I have recently compiled the TeX distribution from stanford >> and the basic conclusion is: >> it works with -O1 >> it doesn't with -O (same as -O2) >> Have people seen enough of these problems that I should >> be avoiding the use of -O altogether ? >Oops. I am running on a DECstation 3100 Ultrix 4.0 mips cc 2.0 cc2.0 has at least one bug that prevents it from compiling TeX3.0 with -O2. We've used cc2.1 and at least this bug has vanished. Nevertheless, neither cc2.0 nor cc2.1 are that stable at all. Regards, -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."