This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/15089] [3.4/3.5 Regression] [tree-ssa] local register variable with a specified register is bad
- From: "ian at wasabisystems dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 23 Jun 2004 17:49:59 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/15089] [3.4/3.5 Regression] [tree-ssa] local register variable with a specified register is bad
- References: <20040423040422.15089.nico@cam.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From ian at wasabisystems dot com 2004-06-23 17:49 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 Regression] [tree-ssa] local register variable with a specified register is bad
"mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> When __l is used in the asm, the writer of the bugzilla report expects
> to see register "r0". However, the value happens to be hanging around
> in a different register so GCC uses that other register instead of
> "r0". Similarly for uses of __i. The behavior of the compiler is
> precisely what I would expect."
But what about this comment from RTH?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-05/msg00657.html
He is describing what appears to me to be an undocumented feature, but
one which he says is important.
Isn't this test case pretty much the same sort of thing?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6147&action=view
Ian
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15089