From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24615 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2008 19:00:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 23924 invoked by uid 48); 3 Jul 2008 18:59:30 -0000 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080703185930.23923.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/36713] [4.4 regression] r137252 breaks -O2 optimization on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "dfranke 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #15 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-03 18:59 ------- > Your challenge is now to produce a testcase from your source ;) I do have a testcase that shows said flags. The difference in assembler between -foptimize-sibling-calls and -fno-optimize-sibling-calls is: --- without.s 2008-07-03 20:51:59.000000000 +0200 +++ with.s 2008-07-03 20:52:26.000000000 +0200 @@ -64,10 +64,9 @@ movq %rsp, %rdi call dummy_atom_model_inertia_tensor_ movq %rsp, %rdi - call inertia_tensor_to_rg_ addq $80, %rsp popq %rbx - ret + jmp inertia_tensor_to_rg_ .LFE2: .size dummy_atom_model_radius_of_gyration_, .-dummy_atom_model_radius_of_gyration_ .section .eh_frame,"a",@progbits Is this correct? Running the code compiled with -foptimize-sibling-calls seems to yield the correct result. Not sure if I need to investigate further. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36713