From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-398299-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22002 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2012 10:39:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 21991 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Aug 2012 10:39:47 -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; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:39:33 +0000
From: "senthil_kumar.selvaraj at atmel dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/54218] Debug info for function parameters is incorrect when compiled with -O0
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:39:00 -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-Keywords: wrong-debug
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: senthil_kumar.selvaraj at atmel 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-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-54218-4-xf6PUBn5sm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54218-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54218-4@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: 2012-08/txt/msg00571.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54218

--- Comment #4 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj <senthil_kumar.selvaraj at atmel dot com> 2012-08-10 10:39:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> That's because the actual parameter value is not used:
> 
> func (int p)
> {
> ;;   basic block 2, loop depth 0
> ;;    pred:       ENTRY
>   p_1 = 0;
>   p_2 = 32;
>   return;
> 
> Partition 0 (p_1 - 1 2 )
> 
> 
> Does -fvar-tracking "fix" it?

Yes, it does. Doesn't change the code generated though - the initial copy is
still at a different frame offset.

(In reply to comment #1)
> That's because the actual parameter value is not used:
> 
> func (int p)
> {
> ;;   basic block 2, loop depth 0
> ;;    pred:       ENTRY
>   p_1 = 0;
>   p_2 = 32;
>   return;
> 
> Partition 0 (p_1 - 1 2 )
> 
> 
> Does -fvar-tracking "fix" it?

(In reply to comment #1)
> That's because the actual parameter value is not used:
> 
> func (int p)
> {
> ;;   basic block 2, loop depth 0
> ;;    pred:       ENTRY
>   p_1 = 0;
>   p_2 = 32;
>   return;
> 
> Partition 0 (p_1 - 1 2 )
> 
> 
> Does -fvar-tracking "fix" it?