On 29 September 2010 08:07, #SINHA SHARAD# wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I presume this happens because the glibc with gcc 4.2.1 is smarter than the
> one with gcc 3.2.2. Hence, what was missed during execution with 3.2.2 was
> caught in 4.2.1
N.B. glibc does not come with GCC, you can generally use a new
On 29 September 2010 10:29, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 09/29/2010 08:07 AM, #SINHA SHARAD# wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had a big piece of code that ran smoothly on gcc 3.2.2. For
>> some reason, I had to start using that code on a machine with GCC
>> 4.2.1. Now, it would throw segmentation faults (inv
On 09/29/2010 08:07 AM, #SINHA SHARAD# wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had a big piece of code that ran smoothly on gcc 3.2.2. For
> some reason, I had to start using that code on a machine with GCC
> 4.2.1. Now, it would throw segmentation faults (invalid free pointer
> etc) and abort the program. I pres
Hi,
I had a big piece of code that ran smoothly on gcc 3.2.2. For some reason,
I had to start using that code on a machine with GCC 4.2.1. Now, it would throw
segmentation faults (invalid free pointer etc) and abort the program. I presume
this happens because the glibc with gcc 4.2.1 is sm
