![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/565476157eb3895a9c928ffce26d988d.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
6 Oct
2007
6 Oct
'07
10:22 a.m.
Martin Schröder wrote:
... or gcc is simply broken. I suspect the later: -O shouldn't break the code.
I agree with that. But you probably have to find a workaround anyway, because those gcc's are already out there and for many people, upgrading gcc is out of the question :(