|
 |
<6k10vtknk68m8lht0gotvc0noqvjlrf7sm@4ax.com>...
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:29:03 -0500, "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholic org> wrote:
>
>> I don't like the sound of what Altavista just translated that to...
>
>As I understand (but mostly I don't understend) there is something wrong
with
>Intel compiler. It produces wrong image for POV 3.1 (I recognized 3.1
becose no
>switch line within bar).
They say, it produces wrong code if you use -ipo (inter procedural
optimization). This way, some subroutines are not called as procedures
(call/return), but are inserted directly in the code. This fails in some
cases, as in Pov. And even if it might be faster in some cases, it should be
avoided, esp. as the compiler produces fast code even without that switch.
> But I wonder - could it be bug within POV not within
>compiler? How they verified this? There is always possibility of bug in POV
(but
>I hope not).
I think they took to versions of Pov, one with -ipo one w/o. As the later
renders the scene correct, but that one with -ipo does not, isn't it obvious
that the compiler switch is responsible?
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
