From xemacs-m  Wed Jul  2 23:04:04 1997
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA13466;
	Wed, 2 Jul 1997 23:04:04 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id VAA24340; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 21:28:41 -0700
Received: from kindra.eng.sun.com by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3)
	id VAA26369; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 21:03:33 -0700
Received: from xemacs.eng.sun.com by kindra.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA22492; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 21:03:31 -0700
Received: by xemacs.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA01855; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 21:03:29 -0700
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 21:03:29 -0700
Message-Id: <199707030403.VAA01855@xemacs.eng.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM>
To: Steven L Baur <steve@xemacs.org>
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Repeatable crash with union type
In-Reply-To: <m2wwn823jz.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <kigk9jfu3w6.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
	<199707030128.SAA01713@xemacs.eng.sun.com>
	<m2wwn823jz.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 20.3 "Sofia" XEmacs  Lucid (beta9)
Reply-To: Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM>

>>>>> "sb" == Steven L Baur <steve@xemacs.org> writes:

sb> Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM> writes:
>> I've added this to configure:

>> if test "GCC $with_mule $use_union_type" = "yes yes yes"; then
>> echo "  WARNING: ---------------------------------------------------------"
>> echo "  WARNING: gcc is known to produce buggy code when --with-union-type"
>> echo "  WARNING: and --with-mule are enabled.  XEmacs may crash."
>> echo "  WARNING: ---------------------------------------------------------"
>> fi

sb> What platforms does it produce bad code on?  It sure looks like it's
sb> O.K. on Intel Linux.  I've been working this way
sb> (Gcc+Optimization+Mule+Lisp Union Type) for many months now.

I didn't realize that.  So the bug is platform-dependent (I and Hrvoje 
both get it on Solaris).  If it *only* occurs on Solaris, or perhaps
only on sparc, then we can amend the above warning...

Martin

