From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24310 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2009 03:44:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 24284 invoked by uid 48); 17 Aug 2009 03:44:46 -0000 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090817034446.24283.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/41085] [4.5 Regression]: cris-elf gcc.dg/pr28796-2.c In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "hp 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: 2009-08/txt/msg01389.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-17 03:44 ------- Created an attachment (id=18376) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18376&action=view) Simplified gcc.dg/pr28796-2.c It's the fourth call to foo that has its "d" parameter (passed in r10 and r11) munged to 0, where r11 should have held 0x100000, just like r13 (parameter "ld", passed in r12 and r13 and long double === double for this target). If you look at the generated code, there's a little song-and-dance storing the variables temporarily to stack because of the "volatile" qualifier, but which seemingly improved with r149962. To wit, the lines d = ((double)2.2250738585072014e-308L); ld = 2.2250738585072014e-308L; foo(d, ld, 0, 1); are compiled as: d = 0; ld = 2.2250738585072014e-308L; foo(d, ld, 0, 1); Deleting further individual statements or parameters or the volatile qualifiers (any combination I tried) hid the bug. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41085