On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:14:58AM +0100, grischka wrote:
> 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 ;)
Fixed in mob
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
