http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But what would be safe positive/negative offsets from frame_pointer?
> I mean, e.g. size of arguments is not included in the frame size, so size of
> arguments would need to be taken into account too, plus d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6)
> > But even if I try:
> > int a;
> > __attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
> > foo (int *e)
> > {
> > asm volatile ("" : : "r" (e) : "memory");
> > }
> >
> > i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But even if I try:
> int a;
> __attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
> foo (int *e)
> {
> asm volatile ("" : : "r" (e) : "memory");
> }
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> int e[2] = { 0, 0 }, f = 0;
> if (a ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps some new flag (MEM access will always fault?) or something similar.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can be simplified into:
int a;
int
main ()
{
int e[2] = { 0, 0 }, f = 0;
if (a == 131072)
f = e[a];
return f;
}
which then starts to crash even starting from 4.3 or so (in between r125500 and
r12600
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
