On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:33:08AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >I see. It seems the 3.4.x code is just assuming a bit too much when >examining functions, whereas the 4.x implementation is a bit more careful.
AFAICT, the code was just plain wrong with gcc 3.4.4. However, I found a bug report where someone was reporting a similar problem and the reply was "Well, you had aliasing problems. What woudl you expect?" and, indeed, fixing the aliasing problems seemed to fix the code generation problem. It still is troubling that gcc 3.4.4 ended up using a completely wrong place on the stack for a variable (after changing a static function to an inline function). cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
