G++ 4.3.4 (with Cygwin 1.7) vs.G++ 4.5.2 (with MinGW) ???

Larry Hall (Cygwin) reply-to-list-only-lh@cygwin.com
Tue Jun 14 01:05:00 GMT 2011

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.



A: Yes.
 > 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
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

More information about the Cygwin mailing list