On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Peter Kourzanov
<peter.kourza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I have the following variation on Duff's device that seems to
> mis-compile on all GCC versions I can access within a minute (that
> is gcc-3.{3,4}, gcc-4.{1,2,3,4} on x86 and gcc-4.3.2 on x86_64). The
> symptoms are as follows:
>
> $ gcc-4.4 -o duffbug duffbug.c ; ./duffbug
> { he��3)
> { hello world ! }
>
> As you can observe in the difference between duff4_works() and
> duff4_fails(), apparently due to for-loop initializer being externalized
> vs. specified as the first for-loop expression. It doesn't matter if the
> 'case 0' is labeling the for-loop, or the first statement in the
> for-loop in case of duff4_works() of course. However, older gcc-3.x do
> give a warning though if the 'case 0' labels the first statement for
> duff4_fails(), since the first expression in the for-loop is then
> inaccessible. All gcc-4.x versions don't warn, even when supplied with
> the -Wall flag (which is wrong, hence this *first* bug):
>
> $ gcc-4.4 -Wall -o duffbug duffbug.c ; ./duffbug
> $ gcc-3.4 -Wall -o duffbug duffbug.c ; ./duffbug
> duffbug.c: In function `duff4_fails':
> duffbug.c:28: warning: unreachable code at beginning of switch statement
>
> I think the compiler is generating wrong code for duff4_fails() when
> 'case 0' labels the for-loop. It somehow skips the first for-loop
> expression, just as if 'case 0' pointed to the first statement in the
> for-loop (hence this *second* bug). Haven't checked the assembly
> though...
The routines are not equivalent. in _works you unconditionally
do dst += n while in _fails you only do it for rem == 0.
Richard.
> Kind regards,
>
> Pjotr Kourzanov
>
