This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] rfa: fix problem with reassociating pointer additions
Eric Christopher wrote:
> > If so, I don't see how that applies; the effective address produced
> > will be properly sign extended.
> > I would need to see a test case...
> I gave one in the thread...
Can this one be caused by either
- an old Linux bug, where the first invalid address for a 32bit task
running on a 64bit kernel was erraneously defined as 0x80000000
instead of 0x7fff8000? (The trick of reserving the last 32k is
commonly used in MIPS OSes to avoid such problems).
- an old assembler bug, which garbled sign extensions in such cases?