* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
@ 2006-10-10 15:40 ` christophe at saout dot de
2006-10-10 16:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: christophe at saout dot de @ 2006-10-10 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from christophe at saout dot de 2006-10-10 15:40 -------
Created an attachment (id=12404)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12404&action=view)
preprocessed pthread_mutex_lock.c causing the miscompiled code
Call with "gcc -O2 -o test.o -c pthread_mutex_lock.c" on i686 and look at the
beginning of the generated __pthread_mutex_lock function, around the first
cmpxchg call.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
2006-10-10 15:40 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29415] " christophe at saout dot de
@ 2006-10-10 16:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-10 18:55 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-10 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 16:46 -------
__asm __volatile ( "call *_dl_sysinfo\n\t" : "=a" (__status) : "0" (240), "b"
(&mutex->__data.__lock), "S" (0), "c" (0), "d" (_val), "i" (__builtin_offsetof
(tcbhead_t, sysinfo)) : "memory");
I think what you are doing here is invalid, you cannot change the control flow
via an inline-asm.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
2006-10-10 15:40 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29415] " christophe at saout dot de
2006-10-10 16:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-10 18:55 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 0:48 ` [Bug middle-end/29415] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-10 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 18:55 -------
No, that's perfectly valid, you can't jump out of an asm or jump into it,
but if you enter the asm and exit it, it doesn't matter what branches or calls
were used inside it (of course if the function you call inside it is written
in C you need to add used attribute to it to make sure it is not optimized
out if it is not otherwise referenced).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/29415] [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-10 18:55 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 0:48 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 0:57 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 regression] ] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 0:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|critical |normal
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 regression] ] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 0:48 ` [Bug middle-end/29415] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 0:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 1:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 0:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Keywords| |alias, wrong-code
Summary|[4.2] bad code reordering |[4.2 regression] ] bad code
|around inline asm block |reordering around inline asm
| |block
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 regression] ] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 0:57 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 regression] ] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 1:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 2:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 1:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 01:05 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> No, that's perfectly valid, you can't jump out of an asm or jump into it,
> but if you enter the asm and exit it, it doesn't matter what branches or calls
> were used inside it (of course if the function you call inside it is written
> in C you need to add used attribute to it to make sure it is not optimized
> out if it is not otherwise referenced).
Not really, it is still questionable but it is unrelated to the problem as far
as I can tell. The problem is related to struct aliasing, here is a short
testcase which shows the problem (for PPC):
typedef struct
{
int t;
} pthread_mutex_t;
int t;
int f(pthread_mutex_t *a)
{
a->t = 1;
asm("stw%X0 %1,%0" ::"r"(a->t) :"r"(3) : "memory");
return a->t + t;
}
int main(void)
{
pthread_mutex_t a;
if (f(&a)!=3)
__builtin_abort ();
}
We should not get 1+t but a->t + t in the .final_cleanup as the asm can clober
memory.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org, pinskia at gcc dot gnu
| |dot org
Severity|normal |blocker
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-10-11 01:05:16
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 regression] ] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 1:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 2:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 2:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 2:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 02:35 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> asm("stw%X0 %1,%0" ::"r"(a->t) :"r"(3) : "memory");
This is what I get for making a runtime testcase in the bug report.
That asm should be:
asm("stw%X0 %1,%0" ::"r"(a->t) ,"r"(3) : "memory");
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 regression] ] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 2:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 2:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 2:43 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 02:37 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > asm("stw%X0 %1,%0" ::"r"(a->t) :"r"(3) : "memory");
> This is what I get for making a runtime testcase in the bug report.
> That asm should be:
> asm("stw%X0 %1,%0" ::"r"(a->t) ,"r"(3) : "memory");
Grrr, lets try that again, this time for the correct PPC asm:
asm("stw %1,0(%0)" ::"r"(a->t) ,"r"(3) : "memory");
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 regression] ] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 2:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 2:43 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-11 2:46 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 2:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 02:43 -------
Actually, AFAICT this is a variant of the struct aliasing bug zdenek reported.
The real problem is that we eliminate the false aliases and because their is no
real addressable variable here, the asm's miss out on the SMT's.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 regression] ] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 2:43 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-11 2:46 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-13 17:18 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 Regression] " steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-11 2:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 02:46 -------
I've verified my fix for the other two bugs will fix this (sorry that one is
taking so long).
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2006-10-11 01:05:16 |2006-10-11 02:46:10
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 Regression] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-11 2:46 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-13 17:18 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-13 17:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-13 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 Regression] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-13 17:18 ` [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 Regression] " steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-13 17:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-13 17:49 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-13 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 17:44 -------
Note Mark has requested the priorities for new regressions stay at P3 so he can
see the new regressions and prioritize them himself. Reverting back to P3 for
that reason.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P1 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 Regression] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-13 17:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-13 17:49 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-15 21:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-13 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 17:49 -------
mine
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2006-10-11 02:46:10 |2006-10-13 17:49:17
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 Regression] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-13 17:49 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-15 21:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-19 23:06 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-15 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 Regression] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-15 21:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-19 23:06 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-19 23:07 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-19 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-19 23:06 -------
Subject: Bug 29415
Author: dberlin
Date: Thu Oct 19 23:05:53 2006
New Revision: 117891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117891
Log:
2006-10-19 Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
Fix PR tree-optimization/28778
Fix PR tree-optimization/29156
Fix PR tree-optimization/29415
* tree.h (DECL_PTA_ARTIFICIAL): New macro.
(tree_decl_with_vis): Add artificial_pta_var flag.
* tree-ssa-alias.c (is_escape_site): Remove alias info argument,
pushed into callers.
* tree-ssa-structalias.c (nonlocal_for_type): New variable.
(nonlocal_all): Ditto.
(struct variable_info): Add directly_dereferenced member.
(var_escaped_vars): New variable.
(escaped_vars_tree): Ditto.
(escaped_vars_id): Ditto.
(nonlocal_vars_id): Ditto.
(new_var_info): Set directly_dereferenced.
(graph_size): New variable
(build_constraint_graph): Use graph_size.
(solve_graph): Don't process constraints that cannot change the
solution, don't try to propagate an empty solution to our
successors.
(process_constraint): Set directly_dereferenced.
(could_have_pointers): New function.
(get_constraint_for_component_ref): Don't process STRING_CST.
(nonlocal_lookup): New function.
(nonlocal_insert): Ditto.
(create_nonlocal_var): Ditto.
(get_nonlocal_id_for_type): Ditto.
(get_constraint_for): Allow results vector to be empty in the case
of string constants.
Handle results of calls properly.
(update_alias_info): Update alias info stats on number and type of
calls.
(find_func_aliases): Use could_have_pointers.
(make_constraint_from_escaped): Renamed from
make_constraint_to_anything, and changed to make constraints from
escape variable.
(make_constraint_to_escaped): New function.
(find_global_initializers): Ditto.
(create_variable_info_for): Make constraint from escaped to any
global variable, and from any global variable to the set of
escaped vars.
(intra_create_variable_infos): Deal with escaped instead of
pointing to anything.
(set_uids_in_ptset): Do type pruning on directly dereferenced
variables.
(find_what_p_points_to): Adjust call to set_uids_with_ptset.
(init_base_vars): Fix comment, and initialize escaped_vars.
(need_to_solve): Removed.
(find_escape_constraints): New function.
(expand_nonlocal_solutions): Ditto.
(compute_points_to_sets): Call find_escape_constraints and
expand_nonlocal_solutions.
(delete_points_to_sets): Don't fall off the end of the graph.
(init_alias_heapvars): Initialize nonlocal_for_type and
nonlocal_all.
(delete_alias_heapvars): Free nonlocal_for_type and null out
nonlocal_all.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr28778.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr29156.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pta-fp.c
trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-operands.c
trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.h
trunk/gcc/tree.h
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 Regression] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-19 23:06 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-19 23:07 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-30 15:25 ` cfriedt at visible-assets dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-10-19 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-19 23:07 -------
Fixed.
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 Regression] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2006-10-19 23:07 ` dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-11-30 15:25 ` cfriedt at visible-assets dot com
2007-11-30 15:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-30 15:48 ` cfriedt at visible-assets dot com
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: cfriedt at visible-assets dot com @ 2007-11-30 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from cfriedt at visible-assets dot com 2007-11-30 15:25 -------
Is there a release of gcc where is this problem fixed, or is it only in the
repository?
I've been running into this problem for the last 2 days and was working around
the clock, assuming that something was wrong with my code.
(In reply to comment #12)
> Fixed.
>
--
cfriedt at visible-assets dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |cfriedt at visible-assets
| |dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 Regression] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-30 15:25 ` cfriedt at visible-assets dot com
@ 2007-11-30 15:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-30 15:48 ` cfriedt at visible-assets dot com
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-11-30 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-30 15:27 -------
As you can see from the target milestone it should be fixed in all released
versions (it was only broken during 4.2.0 development).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/29415] [4.2 Regression] bad code reordering around inline asm block
2006-10-10 15:38 [Bug tree-optimization/29415] New: [4.2] bad code reordering around inline asm block christophe at saout dot de
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-30 15:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-11-30 15:48 ` cfriedt at visible-assets dot com
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: cfriedt at visible-assets dot com @ 2007-11-30 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from cfriedt at visible-assets dot com 2007-11-30 15:48 -------
Right - I guess I should make the Gentoo folks aware of this, because in their
current tree anything >= 4.2.0 is marked as unstable.
Thanks for the reply.
(In reply to comment #14)
> As you can see from the target milestone it should be fixed in all released
> versions (it was only broken during 4.2.0 development).
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread