Re: [Patch] PR 61692 - Fix for inline asm ICE

[David Wohlferd <dw at LimeGreenSocks dot com>]

I sent you the file you requested (off list), but never heard back from 
you about the valgrind results.

In an effort to move this along, I installed ubuntu under virtualbox and 
did a build of gcc.  When running the output of this build with 
valgrind, I saw a number of memory *leaks* reported, but no overruns, 
despite having maxed out the operands + clobbers in a variety of ways.

I have only tested this on x86, and only with inline asm, but I have had 
no luck (using code inspection, sprinkling printfs, and now valgrind) 
locating the error you are expecting to see.  Without knowing what is 
making you "quite confident" there is a problem, I don't know what else 
to try.  Suggestions?

Theoretically I could add the nclobbers in "just in case." But unlike 
adding nlabels, adding nclobbers here will almost certainly break 
someone's code.  I'm not prepared to do that unless there is a clear 
problem to be fixed, and I'm just not seeing it.

If you are also out of ideas, I can re-send the patch for the original 
ninputs + noutputs + nlabels problem (along with the testcase you 
requested), and we can at least fix the known ICE.

dw

On 8/1/2014 11:29 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/01/14 02:07, David Wohlferd wrote:
> > I'd love to.  Unfortunately, my platform doesn't support valgrind.
> Ah.
>
> > > Also, please include the testcase you had nlabels part.
> >
> > I have created the testcase for the 31 labels problem.  However, not so
> > much for the nclobbers part.  And if I'm going to patch both, I should
> > have testcases for both.
> Tell you what, pass along what you've got and I'll run it under 
> valgrind here.  I'm quite confident both need to be changed -- though 
> it is possible nothing will trigger with the nclobbers stuff if it is 
> indeed handled separately throughout the guts of GCC.
>
>
> Jeff