From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7895 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2010 08:21:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 7785 invoked by uid 48); 1 Jul 2010 08:20:50 -0000 Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100701082050.7784.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/44736] Overeager -O1 optimization results in incorrect code generation 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: 2010-07/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-01 08:20 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Thanks for the lightening fast response. I wouldn't have known to look there, > especially since older GCC versions did not have this problem. > > Is it because 4.5.0 has better optimizations such that the code surrounding > this malloc is now optimized away in this situation? > > Finally, is this issue going to be resolved within GCC, or is the permanent fix > going to be to ask developers to use -fno-builtin-malloc? We are going to ask developers to use -fno-builtin-malloc for now. I also think this is a glibc bug which should mark the hook variables volatile. So, can you file a bug in the glibc bugzilla as well? > Thanks again. > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44736