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: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: A Text_IO fixes it?
Date: 1999/12/22
Message-ID: <wcc7li6de0f.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 563884271
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <83m49f$f9j$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <83nc6p$hm7$1@clnews.edf.fr>
 <83r1qa$qld$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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