From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Received: (qmail 24323 invoked by uid 61); 11 Jan 2003 01:28:10 -0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030111012810.24322.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: dholm@telia.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, dholm@telia.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: target/7582: Intel intrinsics cause segfault with gcc 3.1.1 and 3.2 X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00688.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: Intel intrinsics cause segfault with gcc 3.1.1 and 3.2 State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Fri Jan 10 17:28:09 2003 State-Changed-Why: I understand that this is not the most politely worded question (taken from the audit trail of this report), but could you nevertheless reply to it? ----- You start off with no attempt to get aligned storage for tmp1 and tmp2. In an ideal world, malloc would take care of this, but gcc doesn't take responsibility for which malloc you use. I take it you are using whatever glibc gives you. Mine gives me 8-byte alignment, but not the required 16-byte alignment. Since you didn't mention whether you stepped into your code with your favorite debugger to check for such problems, some of us may assume you haven't begun to do your homework. If you did use a strategy to assure alignment, you haven't informed us what it might be. You've gone out of your way to obscure your code, yet you ignore what seems most evident. As I understand it, the preference for the Intel compiler would be to use the special aligned entry point _mm_malloc(), in order to make your code portable to Windows, so you are lucky it works with icc. ----- Thanks Wolfgang http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7582