RE: Problem in function in-lining

2006-04-14 Thread Dave Korn
On 13 April 2006 20:04, Martin Hicks wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:32:39PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >> On 13 April 2006 13:37, Martin Hicks wrote: >> >>> I posted a couple weeks ago to the list, but never got any responses. >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-04/msg00054.html >>> >>> mh >>

Re: Problem in function in-lining

2006-04-13 Thread Mike Stump
On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:34 PM, Ching-Hua Chang wrote: We had ported gcc-3.4.2 to our own RISC, and meet a strange case in optimization level 3 (-O3). We don't have the resources to help with very old versions of gcc on this list. I'd recommend upgrading to gcc-4.2. If it then works, you ca

Re: Problem in function in-lining

2006-04-13 Thread Martin Hicks
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:32:39PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > On 13 April 2006 13:37, Martin Hicks wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:34:10PM +0800, Ching-Hua Chang wrote: > >> We had ported gcc-3.4.2 to our own RISC, and meet a strange > >> case in optimization level 3 (-O3). > >> > >> The

RE: Problem in function in-lining

2006-04-13 Thread Dave Korn
On 13 April 2006 13:37, Martin Hicks wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:34:10PM +0800, Ching-Hua Chang wrote: >> We had ported gcc-3.4.2 to our own RISC, and meet a strange >> case in optimization level 3 (-O3). >> >> The compiler produce wrong assembly code in O3 and >> correct result if we add

Re: Problem in function in-lining

2006-04-13 Thread Martin Hicks
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:34:10PM +0800, Ching-Hua Chang wrote: > We had ported gcc-3.4.2 to our own RISC, and meet a strange > case in optimization level 3 (-O3). > > The compiler produce wrong assembly code in O3 and > correct result if we add -fno-inline flag. > > It seems that there some pr