On 4/22/06, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> 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.>
Yeah, i think too,i learned a lot (-S flag, ....)thanks for everything and sorry for disturbance....
--Thibaud
