From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-458327-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 872 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2014 07:47:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 826 invoked by uid 48); 13 Aug 2014 07:47:23 -0000
From: "tp+gcc at pambor dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/46164] Local variables in specified registers don't work correctly with inline asm operands
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:47:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.5.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ra, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tp+gcc at pambor dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-46164-4-tT1qjMXWRu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-46164-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-46164-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00824.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46164

--- Comment #4 from Tim Pambor <tp+gcc at pambor dot com> ---
Created attachment 33307
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33307&action=edit
testcase for gcc 4.9.1

I think this bug is still present in gcc 4.9.1 and 4.8.4.

I could reproduce the problem with the attached testcase using gcc 4.8.4 with
-O1 and -Og and 4.9.1 with -O1. -O0, -O2, -O3, -Os generated correct code. It
generated the following assembler code:

...
  mov r0, r0    @ r0
  mov r4, r4    @ r1
  mov r2, r2    @ r2
...

Expected would have been:

...
  mov r0, r0    @ r0
  mov r1, r1    @ r1
  mov r2, r2    @ r2
...