Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Similar bug happens for i386 for example with
double bar(double a, double b, double c, double d);
double foo (double *p)
{
return bar(p[1], p[2], p[3], p[4]);
}
which produces
49: 8b 5d fc mov 0xfffffffc(%ebp),%ebx
4c: dd 03 fldl (%ebx)
It should never use %ebx. Hope this helps.
Are you working on a fix? I looked for some use of ebx in i386-* and didn't see
any reference to ebx or rbx which looked suspicious. Would it be a wrong
construction of an instruction?
Good question ;)
--- grischka
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
