From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31609 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2003 19:46:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31570 invoked by uid 71); 6 Apr 2003 19:46:00 -0000 Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 19:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030406194600.31569.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: wilson@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Jim Wilson Subject: Re: c/7871: ICE on legal code, global register variables problems Reply-To: Jim Wilson X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/7871; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jim Wilson To: Richard Zidlicky Cc: Richard Henderson , gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, wilson@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/7871: ICE on legal code, global register variables problems Date: 06 Apr 2003 15:37:51 -0400 On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 15:49, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > how does this differ from =C2=B4normal=C2=B4 global variables? Normal global variables are stored in memory instead of in registers. We don't add REG_NOTES and/or LOG_LINKS for values in memory like we do for registers. Also, most optimization passes known that memory is volatile across function calls, but they assume (call-saved) registers will be preserved. Thus we need special treatment for global register variables. > my application is still miscompiled with this patch.=20 OK, so we need more work here. > Tested only gcc-3.2, should this make any difference? No. I haven't had a chance to do any more work on this problem since my original message, and won't for a while. I'm in the middle of a 4000 km international move, and will be offline for the next week or two. Jim