This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Linux/PPC gcc 2.95.2 - bad access generated when using inline func
- To: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Subject: Re: Linux/PPC gcc 2.95.2 - bad access generated when using inline func
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:36:33 -0700
- Cc: rearnsha at arm dot com, Geoff Keating <geoffk at cygnus dot com>, cort at fsmlabs dot com, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000630151430.033a7a20@mail.lauterbach.com> <Your <4.3.2.7.2.20000630142601.00de6280@mail.lauterbach.com> <200006301244.NAA10398@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20000630151430.033a7a20@mail.lauterbach.com> <20000706225137.C30004@cygnus.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20000707144628.00e533a0@mail.lauterbach.com>
On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 03:05:25PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> The label isn't deleted anyway, it's just moved into the wrong place.
No, it's deleted. That's a debugging label you have there.
Those sort of float about. I should see about fixing that
in the scheduler, cause it's sorta less than useful.
> ... the ABI may mandate instructions to be between
> __builtin_return_address(0) and &&label?
Yes.
> Can I leave the equality test turned on for ALL targets for a
> while, until I know which are real XFAIL's?
No. I don't like the notion of equality tests for __bra(0) at all.
Equality tests for __bra(1) should be ok, even for alpha (since you
will get NULL).
r~