Thibaud GUERIN writes:
> On 4/22/06, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Well, we've established that whetever is wrong, it's not the code gcc
> > generates for this routine. It's correct, as you can see.
> >
> > > The only debug ways usable in the code right now are some things like :
> > > i = (long)(fmt);
> > > __asm__ volatile ("mov %0, %%eax\n":: "m"(i));
> > > __asm__ volatile ("l1: jmp l1");
> > >
> > > which are really dirty i agree...
> >
> > Thay're also wrong, becasue they don't clobber eax.
>
> If you have any way to do it (or check with cleaner ways) i'm
> listening .... it'll be helpfull....
Just put "eax" in the clobber list of the asm. But really, we've gone
as far down the read as we can with this: the gcc code you produced is
correct. Time to look elsewhere.
Andrew.
