Re: [Texmacs-dev] RE: Texmacs segfault

[Joris van der Hoeven]

> C(XX)FLAGS Flags: 
> 
> GCC (1) : -O0 -g -ggdb 
> GCC (2) : -mmmx -O3 
> GCC (3) : -march=pentium4 -mmmx -msse -msse2 -mcpu=pentium4 -O3 
> 
> TM (1) : -g -ggdb 
> TM (2) : -O3 
> TM (3) : -O3 -fexpensive-optimizations -fno-exceptions 
> 
> 
> Results: 
> 
>         |   TM (1)   |   TM (2)   |   TM (3)   | 
> --------+------------+------------+------------+ 
> GCC (1) |   works    |   works    | segfaults  | 
> --------+------------+------------+------------+ 
> GCC (2) |   works    | segfaults  | segfaults  | 
> --------+------------+------------+------------+ 
> GCC (3) |   works    | segfaults  | segfaults  | 
> --------+------------+------------+------------+ 

Thanks for this very valuable information.

Which version of guile did you use?

Would it be possible for you to make a similar
comparison for different versions of Guile?

What to you mean by "an optimized g++ 3.2"?
In other words, what did you do in order to compile g++?

As to myself: I compiled g++ using gcc 2.95.3 without any special options
on a RedHat 7.2 system. I compiled TeXmacs without any special options
(i.e TM(3)) and the result seemed to work fine (I waited one hour for
a hypothetical crash while loading and editing a few files)...