This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: Fix PR20204


On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:27:07PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >The trick with the __asm__ annotations is that they force the 
> >optimizers to treat all those variables as virtuals, tickling the bug. 
> > This test works on x86 with the fix and fails without it.
> 
> How can it run on x86, when there is no register r12/r11?
> I just tried on x86, not x86_32:
> int main()
> {
>   register void *return_dst __asm__ ("r13");
>   return *(int*)(return_dst);
> }
> 
> And I get an ICE (which is a regression by the way).

If we don't issue errors on the original testcase on i386, it is surely
a bug.  I think it would be better if the test was tested on some popular
architectures (at least i386, x86-64, ppc* and on the originally reported
one (== cris)), but I think you need some #ifdefs to choose register names
depending on #ifdef __i386__ ... #elif defined __x86_64 ...

	Jakub


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