------- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-02 14:08 -------
Important correction, it works with:
-m32 -Os -fpic -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
but doesn't with:
-m32 -Os -fpic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
which generates identical .text, but different unwind info.
The code in between that jmp .L542 and .L542: looks broken:
.LCFI2090:
call [EMAIL PROTECTED]
addl $16, %esp
.LCFI2091:
jmp .L542
.L543:
.L621:
# basic block 13
.L544:
movl %eax, %edi
subl $12, %esp
.LCFI2092:
leal -32(%ebp), %eax
movl %edx, %esi
pushl %eax
.LCFI2093:
call [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jmp .L545
.LCFI2094:
.L622:
# basic block 14
movl %eax, %edi
movl %edx, %esi
.L545:
# basic block 15
.L623:
subl $12, %esp
.LCFI2095:
pushl -28(%ebp)
.LCFI2096:
call [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cmpl $1, %esi
jne .L592
# basic block 16
.L546:
subl $12, %esp
.LCFI2097:
pushl %edi
.LCFI2098:
call [EMAIL PROTECTED]
addl $16, %esp
.LCFI2099:
.LEHB94:
call [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.LEHE94:
.L542:
# basic block 17
cmpl $0, -20(%ebp)
Both .L621 and .L622 are landing pads, so I believe args_size should be 0
at those points (and the dwarf2out code even clears args_size on BARRIERs).
call [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is done with args_size 16, which looks correct, but it then jumps to .L545
without addl 16, %esp which would be IMNSHO expected to get stack pointer back
to
args_size 0 level, and .L545 is after barrier with no stack changes.
When entering the .L622 landing pad call [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is done with correct args_size 16, but the following call
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is done with args_size 32, eventhough the call only has
one parameter and so should be 16.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36419
