Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the URL shown below and enter your comments there.
Changed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=80190 --- shadow/80190 2006-12-17 14:10:47.000000000 -0500 +++ shadow/80190.tmp.9010 2006-12-19 10:37:55.000000000 -0500 @@ -99,6 +99,23 @@ return 0; } } It should be suitable as a test case for mono/tests/. + +------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-19 10:37 ------- +It looks like CONV.U8 is optimized out somewhere in the runtime, +if a U8 is on the stack. mono_arch_output_basic_block () is cleaning +out the upper dword because it expects something != U8 on the stack. + +This expectation is not true for CONV.U, which doesn't seem +to be optimized out => mono_arch_output_basic_block () is +erroneously wiping half of the pointer away. + +If this make sense, where is CONV.U8 optimized out? +Maybe we should optimize out CONV.U, too instead of the patch, +which might be not quite correct when something != U8 is on the +stack, because it doesn't clean the upper dword. + +Just the 0.02$ of an amateur ;-) + _______________________________________________ mono-bugs maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-bugs
