[Bug middle-end/37154] static inline function problem
--- Comment #10 from sparky at pld-linux dot org 2008-10-01 15:29 --- In that case the bug report is incorrect. The problem lays in glibc, in function lroundl which does not save cr3. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37154
[Bug middle-end/37154] static inline function problem
--- Comment #11 from sparky at pld-linux dot org 2008-10-01 16:47 --- Note: glibc problem have been detected and fixed already: - bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450790 - fix: http://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-hacker/2008-06/msg1.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37154
[Bug middle-end/37154] static inline function problem
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-01 17:11 --- GCC is doing the correct thing. Glibc is broken so closing as invalid as glibc has already been fixed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37154
[Bug middle-end/37154] static inline function problem
--- Comment #6 from sparky at pld-linux dot org 2008-09-29 21:36 --- I was trying to isolate the code which triggers this bug, but seems like the code must be very complex to do so. Nevertheless I found exactly how the resulting assembler code is broken. Note: files gsignal.s and gsignal.s-non-inline are switched. In file .s file with inlining, at line 15045 there's the conditional jump corresponding to `if (!accumulator)' from original code, but the actual comparison of the value and zero is nowhere near to be found. 15041 mr 7,31 15042 bl [EMAIL PROTECTED] 15043 .LBB1531: 15044 .LBB1532: 15045 .loc 1 2282 0 15046 beq- 3,.L1255 --- missing: cmpwi 3,9,0 15047 .LVL1697: 15048 .LBE1532: 15049 .loc 1 2285 0 15050 lwz 9,116(1) It looks like gcc thinks the comparison at line 14364 is enough. The code does not do anything with cr3 along the path, but several external functions are called, which AFAIR are allowed to change the value of cr3. 14360 .loc 1 2333 0 14361 lwz 9,28(22) 14362 .LVL1636: 14363 .loc 1 2334 0 14364 cmpwi 3,9,0 14365 .loc 1 2333 0 14366 stw 9,116(1) 14367 .LVL1637: 14368 .loc 1 2334 0 14369 beq- 3,.L1414 I was playing with newer glib2, so I'm not really sure about this file, but in my case adding appropriate cmpwi 3,reg,0 instruction was enough to fix the code. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37154
[Bug middle-end/37154] static inline function problem
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-29 21:40 --- IIRC cr3 is a volatile conditional register. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37154
[Bug middle-end/37154] static inline function problem
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-29 21:44 --- CR3 is a caller save register just like R31. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37154
[Bug middle-end/37154] static inline function problem
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-29 21:45 --- So maybe someone is violating the PPC ABI. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37154
[Bug middle-end/37154] static inline function problem
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-18 21:11 --- gdb claims that problem is at line 2285, variable accumulator is 0x0, well with optimization, debugging info is not always fully correct. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |middle-end http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37154
[Bug middle-end/37154] static inline function problem
--- Comment #5 from wrobell at pld-linux dot org 2008-08-18 22:40 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
gdb claims that problem is at line 2285, variable accumulator is 0x0,
well with optimization, debugging info is not always fully correct.
i've changed function declaration again to 'static inline'
and inserted
printf('acc %d\n', accumulator);
just before line 2285.
i've got 'acc 0'. so it is really 0x0 and the condition at line 2282
is not evaluated properly (or was optimized out/whatever :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37154
