Vladimir Simonov writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > Vladimir Simonov writes: > > > The attached test case can be built by compile.sh. > > > It produces two binaries - test_bin_bad & test_bin_good. > > > > > > test_bin_good prints "Hello word" before exit. > > > test_bin_bad crashes. > > > > > > The difference is the only -O2 used while test_bin_bad build. > > > > > > The symptoms are the same - incorrect esp usage in caller > > > after call function returning object. > > > > > > We reproduced the bug in gcc 4.1.0/4.1.1/4.1.2 > > > gcc 3.x can't compile the sources. > > > > OK, we're getting closer. > > Hi > > Are you capable to reproduce the bug? Yes. > > Unfortunately, your test case includes a > > ton of system headers for one particular system/version of gcc, > But it doesn't contain any #include directive. > It is self consistent. > > Do you mean that I should > add "#include" for system headers? Yes. Otherwise it's not possible to compile it with any other version of gcc than the one you built it on. A test case should be standalone and not depend on a particulat gcc version. > I think this way we may made the bug less obvious. > > and it > > also includes a lot of library code not used in your test case. > > I understood it from the start of discussion :) > I hoped: > 1. GCC delelopers have some tools or methods to automatically > remove text which does not affect codegeneration. Or some compile > stage which contans intermediate data without unused by > codegeneration prototypes, classes, etc. > 2. GCC developers are smart enough to localize and try to fix gcc > having such obvious indication as this - codegenerator "forgets" > that it called function returning object. Is it impossible to find > thin place/places taking into account above, fix it and check by > our test? It's up to you, really. The more self-contained a test case you provide, the more likely someone is to fix your problem. Remember that they are, in this case, volunteers, and not highly motivated to spend a lot of time to try to remove all the extraneous code. > In such a case the test size has no defference in my opinion. > > > > Fillet that, and you will have a test case that can be submitted. > > It requires a lot of mannual work - remove a peace of code, then > check that the test can be built, the check that the bug did not > disappear, etc. It's your code, so presumably you are familiar with it. I stepped though the code in gdb, and it seemed that not many routines were actually involved. Andrew.
