From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-389093-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26275 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 11:43:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 26265 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 11:43:03 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:42:16 +0000
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libmudflap/49843] 64-bit libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx FAILs at -O
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:43:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libmudflap
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-49843-4-hc4kgSzhJX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-49843-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-49843-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg01375.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49843

Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-17 11:39:46 UTC ---
Starting with my commit

http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=186501

it's probably going to fail at all optimization levels (IIRC the
compilation reported as -O0 is actually with -O2).  I am aware of that
but the patch has passed review and the generated IL looks perfectly
OK and given that the problem was apparently present before I commited
the patch, I thought it appropriate that someone familiar with mudflap
would have a look at the issue.