From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27522 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2007 08:46:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 27497 invoked by uid 48); 18 Nov 2007 08:46:43 -0000 Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20071118084643.27495.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/28581] Illegal loading the address of a label with -O2 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg01663.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-18 08:46 ------- > The compiler is refusing to see the usage of labels as addresses in other > places than "goto"s. I think you call this "design". But one cant expect > the code to produce different results with "optimization" enabled. This is > against the definition of "optimization". This is acceptable if the code is deemed invalid. > It would be nice if you could include a fix for this. It even helps writing > "self-modifying" code, you see. (apart from "goto"s). In fact that is when I > hit this problem. I agree that we should clarify the documentation if we definitely rule the code as being invalid. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot | |org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28581