On 1/29/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ben Tay</b> <<a href="mailto:zonexo@gmail.com">zonexo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>Hi,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>May I know what's the difference between the optimized and debugging version?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Have the optimization flags such as -O3 been used in the compilcation of the libraries for the optimized one? Whereas for the debugging version, there is no optimization by the compiler?</div></blockquote><div><br>It is just the difference in compiler flags. You would have to look at the compiler documentation.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div>If my program works fine in the debugging version, does it mean that I will not get errors in the optimized version?
</div></blockquote><div><br>Most likely.<br><br> Matt<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div>Thanks</div>
</blockquote></div>-- <br>One trouble is that despite this system, anyone who reads journals widely<br>and critically is forced to realize that there are scarcely any bars to eventual<br>publication. There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too
<br>trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too<br>warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too<br>inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving,
<br>no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and<br>no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print. -- Drummond Rennie