* Re: [Bug tree-optimization/26608] New: address of local variables are said to escape even though it is obvious they don't
2006-03-08 18:59 [Bug tree-optimization/26608] New: address of local variables are said to escape even though it is obvious they don't pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-08 19:44 ` Daniel Berlin
2006-03-08 19:44 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26608] " dberlin at dberlin dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2006-03-08 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugzilla; +Cc: gcc-bugs
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 18:59 +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Testcase:
> int *d1;
> int g(int *b)
> {
> d1 = b;
> }
> int f(int a, int b, int c)
> {
> int i, j;
> int *d;
> if (a)
> d = &i;
> else
> d = &j;
> i = 2;
> j = 3;
> g(&b);
> if (i!=2)
> link_error();
> if (j!=3)
> link_error();
> return *d;
> }
> int main(void)
> {
> f(1, 2,3);
> return 0;
> }
>
> This should link with optimize but right now i and j are said to be call
> clobbered for some reason.
What does the dump say.
My guess is that it believes that they are returned from the call, even
though they are not.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/26608] address of local variables are said to escape even though it is obvious they don't
2006-03-08 18:59 [Bug tree-optimization/26608] New: address of local variables are said to escape even though it is obvious they don't pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-08 19:44 ` Daniel Berlin
@ 2006-03-08 19:44 ` dberlin at dberlin dot org
2006-03-08 19:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at dberlin dot org @ 2006-03-08 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-08 19:44 -------
Subject: Re: New: address of local variables
are said to escape even though it is obvious they don't
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 18:59 +0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Testcase:
> int *d1;
> int g(int *b)
> {
> d1 = b;
> }
> int f(int a, int b, int c)
> {
> int i, j;
> int *d;
> if (a)
> d = &i;
> else
> d = &j;
> i = 2;
> j = 3;
> g(&b);
> if (i!=2)
> link_error();
> if (j!=3)
> link_error();
> return *d;
> }
> int main(void)
> {
> f(1, 2,3);
> return 0;
> }
>
> This should link with optimize but right now i and j are said to be call
> clobbered for some reason.
What does the dump say.
My guess is that it believes that they are returned from the call, even
though they are not.
>
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26608
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/26608] address of local variables are said to escape even though it is obvious they don't
2006-03-08 18:59 [Bug tree-optimization/26608] New: address of local variables are said to escape even though it is obvious they don't pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-08 19:44 ` Daniel Berlin
2006-03-08 19:44 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26608] " dberlin at dberlin dot org
@ 2006-03-08 19:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-12 6:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-03 12:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-08 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-08 19:47 -------
Variable: i, UID 1520, int, is aliased, is addressable, default def: i_3
Variable: j, UID 1521, int, is aliased, is addressable, default def: j_5
Variable: b, UID 1516, int, is aliased, is addressable, call clobbered (,
passed to call )
Variable: SMT.30, UID 1569, int, is addressable, call clobbered (, passed to
call ), may aliases: { i j b }
Hmm, it does not say why i and j are thought to be call clobbered but it looks
like it is because the SMT is call clobbered.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26608
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/26608] address of local variables are said to escape even though it is obvious they don't
2006-03-08 18:59 [Bug tree-optimization/26608] New: address of local variables are said to escape even though it is obvious they don't pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-08 19:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-12 6:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-03 12:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-12 6:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-12 06:37 -------
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-09-12 06:37:43
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26608
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/26608] address of local variables are said to escape even though it is obvious they don't
2006-03-08 18:59 [Bug tree-optimization/26608] New: address of local variables are said to escape even though it is obvious they don't pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-12 6:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-04-03 12:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-04-03 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-03 12:24 -------
Works with 4.3. Very similar to PR23086.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26608
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread