[Bug tree-optimization/29484] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] tree-inline.c bug with local static vars

2006-10-17 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P3  |P2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29484

[Bug tree-optimization/29484] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] tree-inline.c bug with local static vars

2006-10-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-10-16 16:06 ---
Confirmed.
generates at -O and higher a reference to undefined local label
No it generates an undefined local label at all levels of optimization in 4.0.x
and above (there was a bug about not supporting used on local static at -O0
which you are running into also).


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Keywords||link-failure
  Known to fail||4.0.0 4.1.0 4.2.0
  Known to work||3.4.0
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-10-16 16:06:40
   date||
Summary|tree-inline.c bug with local|[4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression]
   |static vars |tree-inline.c bug with local
   ||static vars
   Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29484

[Bug tree-optimization/29484] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] tree-inline.c bug with local static vars

2006-10-16 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-10-16 18:42 ---
Actually, even C generates one static var for all the inlined functions (in C
within one object), so I'd say we just should mark functions containing
local static variables with label in their initializers as non-inlinable,
because anything else means we can't use the same variable for more than
one inlined copy of the function.
In that light the original testcase would just issue an error, as always_inline
function can't be inlined, but e.g.
void baz (unsigned long *);

static inline
void bar (void)
{
  addr:;
  static unsigned long b = (unsigned long) addr;
  baz (b);
}

void
f1 (void)
{
  bar ();
}

void
f2 (void)
{
  bar ();
}
would be a valid testcase that we don't handle properly.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29484