On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:01:50 +0200
Gleb Kurtsou <gleb.kurt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I was lucky to write a bit of code which gcc 4.2 fails to compile
> correctly with -O2. Too keep long story short the code fails for gcc
> from base system and last gcc 4.2 snapshot from ports. It works with
> gcc 4.3, gcc 4.4 on FreeBSD and Linux. Clang from base is also good.
> -O and -Os optimization levels are fine (I've tried with all -f* flags
> mentioned in documentation)
> 
> -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer combination is troublesome on amd64. I
> presume i386 should be fine. These options are also used for
> compilation of kernel (with debugging enabled) and modules.
> 
> I'm not able to share the code, but have a test case reproducing the
> bug. I've encountered the issue over a week ago and tried narrowing
> it down to a simple test I could share but without much success.
> 
> The code itself is very common: initialize two structs on stack, call
> a function with pointers to those stucts as arguments. A number of
> inlined assertion functions. gcc fails to correctly optimize struct
> assignments with -fno-omit-frame-pointer, I have a number of small
> structs assigned, gcc decides not to use data coping but to assign
> fields directly. I've tried disabling sra, tweaking sra parameters --
> no luck in forcing it to copy data. Replacing one particular
> assignment with memcpy produces correct code, but that's not a
> solution.
> 
> -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-inline is buggy
> -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -frename-registers is buggy
> 
> I found similar issue with gcc 4.6, but I'm not able to reproduce it
> with gcc test case:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679924
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47893
> 
> I'll be glad to help debugging it and will be hanging on #bsddev
> during weekend as glk.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Gleb.
> _______________________________________________

It should take about ten times less time than this thread took already
to isolate _short_ test case demonstrating the problem, yet nothing of
the sort has shown up yet from anyone involved. Am I missing something?
 
-- 
Alexander Kabaev

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to