On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:05:53PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > Was -- i think that got fixed in gcc. But again only in newer versions.
> >
> > I doubt it. People have said that about a million times, it has never
> > gotten fixed, and I've never seen any actual proof.
>
> In fact, I just double-checked.
> Try this:
Hmm, I actually had tested it some time ago with my own program
(supposed to emulate an ioctl)
extern void f5(char *);
static void f3(void)
{
char y[100];
f5(y);
}
static void f2(void)
{
char x[100];
f5(x);
}
int f(int cmd)
{
switch (cmd) {
case 1: f3(); break;
case 2: f2(); break;
}
return 1;
}
and with gcc 4.3.1 I get:
.globl f
.type f, @function
f:
.LFB4:
subq $120, %rsp <---- not 200 bytes, stack gets
reused; dunno where the 20 comes from
.LCFI0:
cmpl $1, %edi
je .L4
cmpl $2, %edi
je .L4
movl $1, %eax
addq $120, %rsp
ret
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L4:
movq %rsp, %rdi
call f5
movl $1, %eax
addq $120, %rsp
ret
.LFE4:
so at least least for this case it works. Your case also doesn't work for me.
So it looks like gcc didn't like something you did in your test program.
Could be a pointer aliasing problem of some sort.
But yes it doesn't work as well as we hoped.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
