--- Comment #20 from drab at kepler dot fjfi dot cvut dot cz 2006-01-16
03:25 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > Yes, it is unnecessary, but not wrong, since if you take a closer look, it
> > is
> > just
>
> Actually it is wrong as it is in read only memory.
--- Comment #19 from drab at kepler dot fjfi dot cvut dot cz 2006-01-16
03:16 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > Yes, it is unnecessary, but not wrong, since if you take a closer look, it
> > is
> > just
>
> Actually it is wrong as it is in read only memory.
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-16 03:11
---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Yes, it is unnecessary, but not wrong, since if you take a closer look, it is
> just
Actually it is wrong as it is in read only memory.
(insn:TI 412 535 40 ../../gcc/opts.c:1301 (set (
--- Comment #17 from drab at kepler dot fjfi dot cvut dot cz 2006-01-16
03:09 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> mov%ebx,0x85ac8f4
>
> We are writting to cl_options_count for some reason.
Yes, it is unnecessary, but not wrong, since if you take a closer look, it is
just
movlcl_o
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-16 03:03
---
mov%ebx,0x85ac8f4
We are writting to cl_options_count for some reason.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
