From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24558 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2004 22:08:28 -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 24539 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2004 22:08:26 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040623220826.24538.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040423040422.15089.nico@cam.org> References: <20040423040422.15089.nico@cam.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/15089] [3.4/3.5 Regression] [tree-ssa] local register variable with a specified register is bad X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg02978.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2004-06-23 22:08 ------- Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 Regression] [tree-ssa] local register variable with a specified register is bad Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" writes: > > >>When __l is used in the asm, the writer of the bugzilla report expects >>to see register "r0". However, the value happens to be hanging around >>in a different register so GCC uses that other register instead of >>"r0". Similarly for uses of __i. The behavior of the compiler is >>precisely what I would expect." > > > But what about this comment from RTH? > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-05/msg00657.html > > He is describing what appears to me to be an undocumented feature, but > one which he says is important. I don't know; I don't have enough experience with these kinds of tricks. (When I need to do these kinds of things, I just write assembly code.) If Richard and Jeff agree to reopen the bug, that's fine with me. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15089