[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |critical


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-16 21:51 -------
Any news on getting this fixed?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[pluto at agmk dot net]

------- Comment #7 from pluto at agmk dot net  2005-10-17 19:01 -------
both testcases works for me 4.1.0-20051005.
i have applied patches for: PR7776, PR20297, PR22533, PR23948, PR19505,
PR20606/PR24069.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-31 05:41 -------
Yup, this is a showstoppper.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-03 21:00 -------
Jakub, ping!
What's up with this one?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
         AssignedTo|jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
                   |                            |dot org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-04 22:56 -------
For the record, Jakub has apparently dropped this bug from his list to put this
bug back into unassigned state.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-16 21:32 -------
And for the realy record this was fixed by the patch which fixed PR 24003 also.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-09 17:43 -------
The difference between 4.0 and HEAD is the expr.c hunk of
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg02021.html
If Paolo's reversion of that:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00589.html
makes it in, the testcase will pass again.

The real problem is I think that when calls.c decides to save stack area
under an argument for the inner expand_call, but that argument partially overlaps
with the result of the call, we save/restore the argument with the inner
expand_call's argument mode and don't just limit to the actual bytes that
have already been initialized.  So we read some uninitialized bits from the
stack and overwrite with them the computed argument.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2005-09-08 05:52:53         |2005-09-08 16:43:23
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-08 12:46 -------
And here is a C testcase:
double cos(double);
void abort(void);

double x_from_z(double pitch, double stereo); // __attribute__((const));
double x_from_z(double pitch, double stereo)
{
  return 1.0/cos(stereo);
}

void local_to_trflocal(int b, double x_loc, int a)
{
  if (x_loc != 1.0)
    abort ();
}

int main()
{
  local_to_trflocal(0, x_from_z(0,0),0);
  return 0;
}

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-08 09:08 -------
Reduced testcase:

extern "C" double cos(double);
extern "C" void abort(void);

double x_from_z(double pitch=0, double stereo=0); // __attribute__((const));
double x_from_z(double pitch, double stereo)
{
  return 1.0/cos(stereo);
}

void local_to_trflocal(int, double x_loc, int=0)
{
  if (x_loc != 1.0)
    abort ();
}

int main()
{
  local_to_trflocal(0, x_from_z());
  return 0;
}

Code is ok if you declare x_from_z const.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775

[Bug target/23775] [4.1 Regression] wrong code in argument passing

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-08 05:52 -------
Confirmed.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
          Component|middle-end                  |target
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
  GCC build triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu           |
   GCC host triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu           |
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-09-08 05:52:53
               date|                            |
            Summary|4.1: wrong code in argument |[4.1 Regression] wrong code
                   |passing                     |in argument passing
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23775