From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28522 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2008 22:24:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 28225 invoked by uid 48); 16 Jan 2008 22:23:34 -0000 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080116222334.28224.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug inline-asm/23200] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] rejects "i"(&var + 1) In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rguenth 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: 2008-01/txt/msg01702.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #34 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-16 22:23 ------- We should possibly split this bug into two, one for the inconsitencies that can be observed with accepted asms comparing -O0 to -O and one for the bug that we reject(ed) "i"(&var + 1) with optimization. Or declare the latter as fixed (and wontfix on the branches) and turn this into a bug about the first issue. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|[4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 regression]|[4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] |rejects "i"(&var + 1) |rejects "i"(&var + 1) http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23200