This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c/11884] Bad address passed to function with > 8 arguments
- From: "sdowning at fame dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 11 Aug 2003 21:08:35 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c/11884] Bad address passed to function with > 8 arguments
- References: <20030811192658.11884.sdowning@fame.com>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11884
------- Additional Comments From sdowning at fame dot com 2003-08-11 21:08 -------
Subject: Re: Bad address passed to function with > 8 arguments
"falk at debian dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> ------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2003-08-11 20:07 -------
> The differing address doesn't seem like a bug per se to me; gcc
> might spill it, reclaim it, and then re-spill to a different place,
> although that seems unlikely. So is there any observable wrong
> behaviour?
It's definitely a bug. The address of the variable in the caller MUST
be the same in the caller and callee. It IS the same address in the
non-optimized build.
If you dereference the address in gets_ptr, the program core dumps.