Thanks!
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:38 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Hendrik Greving
> <hendrik.greving.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a GCC regression test failing for our backend for -O3. I am
>> posting its code below. This might be more of a C-standard question,
>> but is the optimization case guaranteed not to fail from a C
>> perspective? When compiling it with our backend, the 'here' labels
>> actually match.
>>
>>
>> /* As a quality of implementation issue, we should not prevent inlining
>> of function explicitly marked inline just because a label therein had
>> its address taken. */
>>
>> #ifndef NO_LABEL_VALUES
>> static void *ptr1, *ptr2;
>> static int i = 1;
>>
>> static __inline__ void doit(void **pptr, int cond)
>> {
>> if (cond) {
>> here:
>> *pptr = &&here;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> static void f(int cond)
>> {
>> doit (&ptr1, cond);
>> }
>>
>> static void g(int cond)
>> {
>> doit (&ptr2, cond);
>> }
>>
>> static void bar(void);
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> f (i);
>> bar();
>> g (i);
>>
>> #ifdef __OPTIMIZE__
>> if (ptr1 == ptr2)
>> abort ();
>> #endif
>>
>> exit (0);
>> }
>>
>> void bar(void) { }
>>
>> #else /* NO_LABEL_VALUES */
>> int main() { exit(0); }
>> #endif
>
> It also failed on trunk with -O2/-O3 on x86. But 990208-1.c has
> been changed to
>
> __attribute__ ((noinline))
> static void f(int cond)
> {
> doit (&ptr1, cond);
> }
>
> __attribute__ ((noinline))
> static void g(int cond)
> {
> doit (&ptr2, cond);
> }
>
> __attribute__ ((noinline))
> static void bar(void);
>
>
> --
> H.J.
