From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23149 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2003 01:06:01 -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 23131 invoked by uid 71); 16 Apr 2003 01:06:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 01:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030416010601.23130.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Dag Agren Subject: Re: optimization/10393: gcc does not generate code for loop Reply-To: Dag Agren X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00736.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/10393; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dag Agren To: Eric Botcazou Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, , Subject: Re: optimization/10393: gcc does not generate code for loop Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 04:00:35 +0300 (EET DST) On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Hmm, trying to reproduce it myself from the .ii file fails. Also, the > > generated assembler output does not look familiar to what I got in my > > earlier tests. This is most confusing, as I did not save the orignal > > source file. Would gcc ever produce different output from a .cpp and the > > corresponding .ii file? > > Certainly not, otherwise we would not be able to debug GCC at all. > > Maybe you looked at a different but similar part of the assembly file the > first time? Or you used different compile options? I tried to recreate the compile options I used, but to no avail. I did look at the same part - in the earlier compile, the glEnd() and glDisable() calls that are inside and outside the loops, respectively, were right after each other, with no branch in between. In the new version, the glDisable() is much higher up in the code than the glEnd(), because the loop structure is different. Most mystifying. I did compile it with gcc 3.2 at first, and when that didn't work I installed 3.2.2 on top of it, and it produced the same results. I did not reboot the system in-between, but I don't see how that could have affected anything. -- Dag Agren <> d@c3.cx <> http://www.abo.fi/~dagren/ <> Legalize oregano