Dave Korn wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>
>>> So, this is a real bug then - but it's a missed optimisation in the first
>>> case, not a bogus one in the second case?
>> Probably, but it's not a very interesting one. For what it's worth, the
>> tree dumps are identical right u
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> So, this is a real bug then - but it's a missed optimisation in the first
>> case, not a bogus one in the second case?
>
> Probably, but it's not a very interesting one. For what it's worth, the
> tree dumps are identical right up to the very last tree
Dave Korn wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> eCos@ wrote:
>
>>> ===
>>> int *p;
>>>
>>> int main(void)
>>> {
>>> p++;
>>> __asm__ __volatile__ (""::);
>>> p++;
>>> }
>>> ===
>
>>> assembly
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> eCos@ wrote:
>>
===
int *p;
int main(void)
{
p++;
__asm__ __volatile__ (""::);
p++;
}
>
Dave Korn wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> eCos@ wrote:
>
>>> ===
>>> int *p;
>>>
>>> int main(void)
>>> {
>>> p++;
>>> __asm__ __volatile__ (""::);
>>> p++;
>>> }
>>> ===
>
>>> assembly
Andrew Haley wrote:
> eCos@ wrote:
>> ===
>> int *p;
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> p++;
>> __asm__ __volatile__ (""::);
>> p++;
>> }
>> ===
>> assembly code is like:
>> 'addl $4, %eax'
e...@sunnorth.com.cn wrote:
> Here is an optimization question about gcc compiler, we wonder whether it
> is a bug or not.
>
> A simple test program here:
> ===
> int *p;
>
> int main(void)
> {
> p++;
> __asm__ __volatile__ (""::);
>
