From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e2c3d890be813022
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "C Bass" <cmbass@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: A Text_IO fixes it?
Date: 1999/12/27
Message-ID: <848bcp$6hl$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 565383718
References: <83m49f$f9j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <83nc6p$hm7$1@clnews.edf.fr><83r1qa$qld$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
 <wcc7li6de0f.fsf@world.std.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Server-Date: 27 Dec 1999 18:32:57 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-27T18:32:57+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

You are probably right. Unfortunately, it is hard to minimize what all it
fixed in the 120k+ lines of code we have for this program. It may have been
the optimization for the GUI code (that seemed to be causing the problems).

The *real* problem is that I am about to leave this job for another and
no-one else there has the knowledge to do what I had intended to do
(re-write the GUI). We have one package that creates all the widgets used,
but that one file is 20,000+ lines long. This is really unnecessary as most
of the code can be written into reusable procedures. But as I said, I am
leaving (soon) and don't have the time to rewrite it. :(

Canada

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:wcc7li6de0f.fsf@world.std.com...
> "C Bass" <cmbass@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> > You were right, it was the compiler. I had no set the optimization level
and
> > it was using the default ptimization level for the compiler. I turned
off
> > optimization and everything seemed to be working just fine. It actually
> > fixed quite a many error we have found.
>
> If turning off optimization changes the program's behavior, that does
> not *necessarily* mean there's an optimizer bug, as you seem to imply.
> It could also be that your program does something erroneous
> (unpredictable), and it happened to do some damage when optimized, but
> it happened to work when not optimized.
>
> If you have a small test case, it might be interesting to see it...
>
> - Bob