On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 01:05:52PM +0200, Martin v. L?wis wrote:
> Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is not the problem. gcc assumes the asm will return the same
> > value unless it is explicitely marked "volatile" (or has no oputputs),
> > and will happily merge them.
>
> I se
Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not the problem. gcc assumes the asm will return the same
> value unless it is explicitely marked "volatile" (or has no oputputs),
> and will happily merge them.
I see. Then this would be a glibc bug, for using __asm__ __volatile__
in __bswap16.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin v. =?iso-8859-15?q?L=F6wis?=) writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As you can see, the branch due to the family is unnecessary. This bug
> > exists in gcc272, gcc 2.95 and gcc 3.2
>
> It is unlikely that this bug will ever get fixed, as gcc won't be
> able to de
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As you can see, the branch due to the family is unnecessary. This bug
> exists in gcc272, gcc 2.95 and gcc 3.2
It is unlikely that this bug will ever get fixed, as gcc won't be able
to determine that the two __asm__ blocks really have the same effect.
So if you wan
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0
Severity: minor
The following program
--
#include
int
main(struct sockaddr *fromp, int port)
{
const int family = fromp->sa_family;
union {
struct sockaddr_in6 in6;
struct sockaddr_in in;
} *const u
5 matches
Mail list logo
