This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [GCC] gcc vs. indentation


On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Samium Gromoff wrote:
> 
> -  if (Controller->FirmwareType == DAC960_V1_Controller)
> -    {
> +  if (Controller->FirmwareType == DAC960_V1_Controller) {

> -origDAC960.o:     file format elf32-i386
> +./newDAC960.o:     file format elf32-i386
> 
>  Disassembly of section .text:
> 
> @@ -5837,7 +5837,7 @@
>      52a8:      84 c0                   test   %al,%al
>      52aa:      75 14                   jne    52c0 <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x80>
>      52ac:      0f 0b                   ud2a
> -    52ae:      7d 0d                   jge    52bd <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x7d>
> +    52ae:      7c 0d                   jl     52bd <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x7d>
>      52b0:      27                      daa
>      52b1:      00 00                   add    %al,(%eax)
>      52b3:      00 8d b6 00 00 00       add    %cl,0xb6(%ebp)
> @@ -5951,7 +5951,7 @@
>      5421:      84 c0                   test   %al,%al
>      5423:      0f 85 97 fe ff ff       jne    52c0 <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x80>
>      5429:      0f 0b                   ud2a
> -    542b:      8f 0d 27 00 00 00       popl   0x27
> +    542b:      8e 0d 27 00 00 00       movl   0x27,%cs
>      5431:      e9 8a fe ff ff          jmp    52c0 <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x80>
>      5436:      89 1c 24                mov    %ebx,(%esp,1)
>      5439:      e8 fc ff ff ff          call   543a <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x1fa>
> @@ -7414,7 +7414,7 @@
>      6ba2:      84 c0                   test   %al,%al
>      6ba4:      75 0a                   jne    6bb0 <DAC960_V2_ProcessCompletedCommand+0xa0>
>      6ba6:      0f 0b                   ud2a
> -    6ba8:      bc 11 27 00 00          mov    $0x2711,%esp
> +    6ba8:      bb 11 27 00 00          mov    $0x2711,%ebx
>      6bad:      00 89 f6 83 bc 24       add    %cl,0x24bc83f6(%ecx)
>      6bb3:      84 00                   test   %al,(%eax)
>      6bb5:      00 00                   add    %al,(%eax)
> 
> Thats it.
> The point is i thought and hoped that gcc abstract syntax tree constructor is
> indentation invariant, and that is seemingly not true.

It's okay, no need to worry.  See the "ud2a"s just above the differences?
Those are BUG()s, and they're going to be followed by a short __LINE__
then __FILE__ pointer.  Your indentation change removed one line, so the
BUG()'s __LINE__ numbers have gone down one.  (And it takes a while for
the disassembly to get back to sanity with the instructions thereafter.)

Hugh


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]