From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24797 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2015 11:41:04 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 24752 invoked by uid 48); 10 Feb 2015 11:41:00 -0000 From: "rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/64953] Compiling sourcecode for STM32F103 causes USB errors with some optimization settings Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:41:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING 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: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on everconfirmed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2015-02/txt/msg00972.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64953 Richard Earnshaw changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed| |2015-02-10 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to manuel.reimer from comment #0) > So "something" is wrong with the optimization. Not necessarily. Your program may have a bug in it: many bugs are only shown up by higher levels of optimization. We don't have your hardware and we don't have the full code to your application, so we aren't going to be able to help you debug this. To take this any further you'll need to show us why you think the compiler has mis-optimized your code. I think that's a more useful approach than trying to identify the change in GCC that causes the code to fail.