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: g++.dg/other/static11.C regression

From: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:52:07 -0700
Subject: Re: g++.dg/other/static11.C regression
References: <20031019185853.GA24902@twiddle.net> <87vfqlqaa4.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>

On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:48:03PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I think Jan's solution is the right one.  The assembler will object to
> fake internal register names/numbers, so we don't lose the ability to
> detect this bug.

I'm not sure that's correct.  I think that in the case of

	mov AP, %eax

that it'll just be interpreted as a symbol.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: g++.dg/other/static11.C regression
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: g++.dg/other/static11.C regression
  - From: Zack Weinberg

References:
- g++.dg/other/static11.C regression
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: g++.dg/other/static11.C regression
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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