From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10397 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2009 18:42:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 10389 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Nov 2009 18:42:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org (HELO smtp1.linux-foundation.org) (140.211.169.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:41:50 +0000 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.55]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id nAJIfApp029958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:41:11 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id nAJIf9qP025593; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:41:09 -0800 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:42:00 -0000 From: Linus Torvalds To: Andrew Haley cc: Richard Guenther , rostedt@goodmis.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , Andrew Morton , Heiko Carstens , feng.tang@intel.com, Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , Peter Zijlstra , jakub@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions In-Reply-To: <4B058CCD.8050605@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20091119072040.GA23579@elte.hu> <1258653562.22249.682.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <84fc9c000911191003t244eb864o3d5b355ab5485f@mail.gmail.com> <4B058CCD.8050605@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00518.txt.bz2 On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: > > I've got all that off-list. I found the cause, and replied in another > email. It's not a bug. Oh Gods, are we back to gcc people saying "sure, we do stupid things, but it's allowed, so we don't consider it a bug because it doesn't matter that real people care about real life, we only care about some paper, and real life doesn't matter, if it's 'undefined' we can make our idiotic choices regardless of what people need, and regardless of whether it actually generates better code or not". Linus