Re: Re: Re: Miscompilation at -O2
> Now `cmp.eq` R8 does equal R14 here, doesn't it? This would make p6 = 1 and p7 = 0
> This clearly isn't doing the comparison you were hoping for since this is always true.
> In your first message you wrote:
> But here I see:
> OK, so what exactly is going on here? Is Cnil / Cnil_body a constant
> value (address of a function) and V459 some function pointer variable
> it is being compared against? If so, then I would say it is generating
> the wrong code. Notice that:
Yes, Cnil is a macro defined as &Cnil_body. Cnil_body is a constant
structure defined as a global.
> V459 == 0x6000000004af3450 == r41 == r14 == r8
> It should be loading the value of Cnil / Cnil_body (const) to do the
> comparison, instead it's comparing a register against another register
> it just copied from!
Yes, I agree. I couldn't quite parse the assembly syntax, but your
comments make it clear.
> Please let me know if this helps.
> This helps to an extent, but a test case would be better. This code
> looks almost machine generated (variable names/labels are
> mechnical-looking), and it's hard to grasp without full context; but
This is gcl generated C code.
> the disassembly is huge by itself to just "read". I think I have made
> sense of it, and I think I would agree. I bet this (and perhaps
> another bug, yet unknown) is the cause of some ia64 weirdness.
I think you've grasped it very clearly. So I guess I should file a gcc
bug? Wonder how long that will take to process.... You don't happen to
maintain gcc for ia64, do you?
Camm Maguire firstname.lastname@example.org
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah