[Bug target/39663] New: mingw hosted arm-elf output differs from linux hosted arm-elf when compiling with -Os and -mthumb

[Bug target/39663] New: mingw hosted arm-elf output differs from linux hosted arm-elf when compiling with -Os and -mthumb

[info dot gnu at rt-labs dot com]

Mingw hosted arm-elf output differs from linux hosted arm-elf when compiling
with -Os and -mthumb for the code added below. Remove -mthumb and the output
won't differ.

Mingw hosted toolchain:
Target: arm-elf
Configured with: ../gcc-4.2.2/configure --target=arm-elf
--prefix=/proj/crossgcc/arm-elf --disable-nls --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld
--enable-languages=c --disable-shared --disable-threads --disable-libssp
--disable-__cxa_atexit --disable-libstdcxx-pch --enable-interwork
--enable-multilib
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.2.2

Linux hosted toolchain:
Target: arm-elf
Configured with: ../gcc-4.2.2/configure --target=arm-elf
--prefix=/proj/crossgcc/arm-elf --disable-nls --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld
--enable-languages=c --disable-shared --disable-threads --disable-libssp
--disable-__cxa_atexit --disable-libstdcxx-pch --enable-interwork
--enable-multilib
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.2.2

arm-elf-gcc -Wall -mlittle-endian -mthumb -mthumb-interwork -Os -save-temps  -c
main.c

main.c: 

typedef struct pic
{
   unsigned int soft_set;
   unsigned int soft_clear;
} pic_t;

typedef struct isr
{
   void (*func)(void *);
   void * arg;
} isr_t;

static volatile pic_t * const pSIC = (pic_t *)0xCA000000;
static isr_t isr_table[32];

static void isr1 (void * arg)
{
   /* Clear high priority IRQ */
   pSIC->soft_clear = (1 << 0);
}

int main (void)
{
   /* Install interrupt handlers */
   isr_table[0].func = isr1;
   isr_table[0].arg  = (void *)3;

   while(1);

   return (1);   
}

regards Andreas


-- 
           Summary: mingw hosted arm-elf output differs from linux hosted
                    arm-elf when compiling with  -Os and -mthumb
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.2.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: target
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: info dot gnu at rt-labs dot com
 GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, i686-pc-mingw32
  GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, i686-pc-mingw32
GCC target triplet: arm-elf


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39663

[Bug target/39663] mingw hosted arm-elf output differs from linux hosted arm-elf when compiling with -Os and -mthumb

[info dot gnu at rt-labs dot com]

------- Comment #1 from info dot gnu at rt-labs dot com  2009-04-06 13:50 -------
Created an attachment (id=17595)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17595&action=view)
source file that cause output difference


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39663

[Bug target/39663] mingw hosted arm-elf output differs from linux hosted arm-elf when compiling with -Os and -mthumb

[info dot gnu at rt-labs dot com]

------- Comment #2 from info dot gnu at rt-labs dot com  2009-04-06 13:51 -------
Created an attachment (id=17596)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17596&action=view)
sample makefile to genererate output difference


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39663

[Bug target/39663] mingw hosted arm-elf output differs from linux hosted arm-elf when compiling with -Os and -mthumb

[hp at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-04-07 00:38 -------
The issue is rather 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT host compared to 32-bit HOST_WIDE_INT
host.  (To prove wrong, compare with i686-unknown-linux-gnu instead
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu or configure and build with 'CC=gcc -m32'.)  You
*will* see some differences for code where 64-bit entities appear (maybe your
pic_t and isr_t); known issue.  I think there's another PR which to which this
is a duplicate.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39663

[Bug target/39663] mingw hosted arm-elf output differs from linux hosted arm-elf when compiling with -Os and -mthumb

[info dot gnu at rt-labs dot com]

------- Comment #4 from info dot gnu at rt-labs dot com  2009-04-07 16:52 -------
You're right, I tried both examples you mentioned, i'll point this to #35466
that seems to point out the problem you described about.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 35466 ***


-- 

info dot gnu at rt-labs dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39663