This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: G++ 4.3.4 (with Cygwin 1.7) vs.G++ 4.5.2 (with MinGW) ???
- From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:05:24 -0400
- Subject: Re: G++ 4.3.4 (with Cygwin 1.7) vs.G++ 4.5.2 (with MinGW) ???
- References: <BANLkTimb2p-n7gDbu1Ru_PPhBdBPgc96yg@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On 6/13/2011 2:46 AM, Jan Chludzinski wrote:
Just finished compiling some numerical code (developed using the
Borland C++ compiler) using G++ 4.3.4 (that came with Cygwin 1.7).
The answers are different from what I get using the Borland compiler
(circa 2002). I have known correct answers from some NASA code and
compare against those.
I've transitioned of late to Code::Blocks using the latest MinGW.
MinGW comes with G++ 4.5.2. I compiled using this compiler and it
once again it works (I get the same answers as the NASA code).
Are there known problems with G++ 4.3.4?
BTW, the original code was infinite looping until I replaced the old style:
for (i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ..
with i declared within the routine (i.e., function) with:
for (int i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ...
Try turning off optimizations or at least drop back to -O3.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple