From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13525 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2004 13:06:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13518 invoked by uid 48); 5 Jan 2004 13:06:12 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040105130612.13517.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20031230104215.13511.osoentgen@lucent.com> References: <20031230104215.13511.osoentgen@lucent.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/13511] Problem with compiler optimization -o2 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00385.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-05 13:06 ------- As Andrew keeps pointing out, the increment of Frameptr is being folded into its initialization. I.e. the compiler is converting char *Frameptr = (char *) buffer; Frameptr++; into char *Frameptr = (char *) buffer + 1; and that addend is being held in the relocation table of the object file. You need to examine that relocation table. Are you using a bespoke linker/loader and getting the relocations incorrect? -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13511