On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:40:24 -0700
Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersm...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 07/17/15 11:21 AM, Ismael Luceno wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:57:17 -0300
> > Ismael Luceno <ism...@iodev.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 07:24:59 -0700
> >> Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersm...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >>> On 07/14/15 09:36 PM, Ismael Luceno wrote:
> >>>> @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ set_fontset_extents(
> >>>> font_data = (FontData) font_set->vrotate;
> >>>> font_data_count = font_set->vrotate_num;
> >>>> for( ; font_data_count-- ; font_data++) {
> >>>> - if(font_data->font != NULL) {
> >>>> + if(font_data && font_data->font) {
> >>>> check_fontset_extents(&overall,
> >>>> &logical_ascent, &logical_descent,
> >>>> font_data->font);
> >>>
> >>> This one is more definitively handled in the wrapping check:
> >>>
> >>> if(font_set->vrotate_num > 0 && font_set->vrotate !=
> >>> NULL) {
> >>>
> >>> I can't see any way font_data could ever be NULL here.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I've been thinking it may be a bug in GCC (5.1), I see it optimizes
> >> out a lot around there, but had no time to confirm it yet...
> >>
> >> I can upload the output if you want to look at the machine code.
> >>
> >> I will try building with different flags to point out the problem
> >> (might take some time, there's a lot to test and I'm quite busy
> >> with other stuff).
> >
> > It seems to be an issue with GCC's speculative load scheduling, but
> > I'm not entirely sure that what GCC is doing is wrong...
>
> Are you building with strict-aliasing on or off? Since the check is
> done before casting, I wonder if gcc is deciding they can't alias due
> to the type differences.
>
Indeed, strict-aliasing is on by default. It may be the case, I'll try
reworking some of that code to see.
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
