From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28504 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2010 18:36:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 28495 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2010 18:36:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:36:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o29IamgW032154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:36:48 -0500 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o29IakEc028271; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:36:47 -0500 Message-ID: <4B96953E.10305@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:36:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: thomas.martitz@student.HTW-Berlin.de CC: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Problems migrating to gcc 4.4.3&eabi - apparently a gcc bug References: <4B9677C1.6040502@htw-berlin.de> <4B967A4D.8060905@redhat.com> <4B968150.8010004@htw-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <4B968150.8010004@htw-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2 On 03/09/2010 05:11 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote: > Am 09.03.2010 17:41, schrieb Andrew Haley: >> On 03/09/2010 04:30 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote: >> >> >>> EABI IIRC only mentions changed rules for passing 64bit types. This call >>> should have been the same with 4.4.3. It eventually is if the parameters >>> are in a different order. >>> >>> If this is really a gcc bug, how should we proceed? I assume a bug >>> report on bugzilla? >>> >> This is very strange. Can you make a self-contained source file >> that shows the problem on its own? We need to be able to try it. >> It doesn't have to run, we just have to see the source it >> generates. > > I tried, but the following code doesn't show this problem :( That does not surprise me. I think you're seeing a problem that is caused by something elsewhere in your program. I'm guessing that there may be a bad prototype or somesuch. I think you need to strip down your sources until you find something. Maybe you should try -save-temps and have a look at the actual preprocessd source. Maybe some bastard has done #define int long or something evil like that! Andrew.