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

["Christian Ehrhardt" <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>]

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