Re: c/7227: [<3.2/3.3> regression]: bogus code generation with attribute mode TI

Re: c/7227: [<3.2/3.3> regression]: bogus code generation with attribute mode TI

[Janis Johnson]

The following reply was made to PR c/7227; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de,
   gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c/7227: [<3.2/3.3> regression]: bogus code generation with attribute 
 mode TI
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 14:41:13 -0800

 The warning is issued for the current (20031231) mainline
 and 3.3 branch compilers for a 32-bit compiler on a
 powerpc64-linux system, but not for 64-bit cross or native
 compilers on the same system.  It's also not seen for
 ia64-linux.
 
 Why is the class "wrong-code" and the the synopsis "bogus
 code generation" when in fact it's an incorrect warning,
 not incorrect code?
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7227
 
 
 

Re: c/7227: [<3.2/3.3> regression]: bogus code generation with attribute mode TI

[Christian Ehrhardt]

The following reply was made to PR c/7227; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Christian Ehrhardt" <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
To: Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
  nobody@gcc.gnu.org, ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: c/7227: [<3.2/3.3> regression]: bogus code generation with attribute mode TI
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 00:07:50 +0100

 On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 02:41:13PM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote:
 > Why is the class "wrong-code" and the the synopsis "bogus
 > code generation" when in fact it's an incorrect warning,
 > not incorrect code?
 
 Because the warning is actually correct for the generated asm code, i.e.
 the code is wrong. I remember that I changed synopis and class. Unfortunately
 this info is missing in the audit trail. Maybe this has something to do
 with the full disk problem that gnats had recently. Anyway here's the
 relevant info from my sent-mail box:
 
 ---- snip -----
 Somewhere between 3.2-release and current cvs (3.2 and 3.3) optimization
 with when TImode integers are involved was broken. This code
 
 int f (__attribute__ ((mode (TI))) int a)
 {
 	__attribute__ ((mode (TI))) int w;
 	w = a+1;
 	return w;
 }
 
 Is compiled into this asm code on sparc:
 
 f:
 	!#PROLOGUE# 0
 	!#PROLOGUE# 1
 	mov	0, %o5
 	retl
 	mov	%o5, %o0
 	.size	f, .-f
 	.ident	"GCC: (GNU) 3.3 20021204 (experimental)"
 
 This code is obviously too short.
 This gives an ICE instead, I'll probably open a differen report for this
 though:
 
 __attribute__ ((mode (TI))) int f (__attribute__ ((mode (TI))) int a)
 {
 }
 ---- snip -----
 
 The new PR for the (most likely unrelated) ICE is 8960.
 
      regards   Christian
 

Re: c/7227: [<3.2/3.3> regression]: bogus code generation with attribute mode TI

[ehrhardt]

Old Synopsis: [3.3 regression]: bogus uninitialized variable warning with attribute mode TI
New Synopsis: [<3.2/3.3> regression]: bogus code generation with attribute mode TI

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: cae
State-Changed-When: Sun Dec 15 08:44:24 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    .

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7227