lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateMon, 30 Jun 2003 10:13:06 +0400
FromSamium Gromoff <>
SubjectRe: [GCC] gcc vs. indentation
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:04:03 +0100 (BST)
Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Samium Gromoff wrote:
> > 
> > -  if (Controller->FirmwareType == DAC960_V1_Controller)
> > -    {
> > +  if (Controller->FirmwareType == DAC960_V1_Controller) {
> 
> > -origDAC960.o:     file format elf32-i386
> > +./newDAC960.o:     file format elf32-i386
> > 
> >  Disassembly of section .text:
> > 
> > @@ -5837,7 +5837,7 @@
> >      52a8:      84 c0                   test   %al,%al
> >      52aa:      75 14                   jne    52c0 <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x80>
> >      52ac:      0f 0b                   ud2a
> > -    52ae:      7d 0d                   jge    52bd <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x7d>
> > +    52ae:      7c 0d                   jl     52bd <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x7d>
> >      52b0:      27                      daa
> >      52b1:      00 00                   add    %al,(%eax)
> >      52b3:      00 8d b6 00 00 00       add    %cl,0xb6(%ebp)
> > @@ -5951,7 +5951,7 @@
> >      5421:      84 c0                   test   %al,%al
> >      5423:      0f 85 97 fe ff ff       jne    52c0 <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x80>
> >      5429:      0f 0b                   ud2a
> > -    542b:      8f 0d 27 00 00 00       popl   0x27
> > +    542b:      8e 0d 27 00 00 00       movl   0x27,%cs
> >      5431:      e9 8a fe ff ff          jmp    52c0 <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x80>
> >      5436:      89 1c 24                mov    %ebx,(%esp,1)
> >      5439:      e8 fc ff ff ff          call   543a <DAC960_V1_ProcessCompletedCommand+0x1fa>
> > @@ -7414,7 +7414,7 @@
> >      6ba2:      84 c0                   test   %al,%al
> >      6ba4:      75 0a                   jne    6bb0 <DAC960_V2_ProcessCompletedCommand+0xa0>
> >      6ba6:      0f 0b                   ud2a
> > -    6ba8:      bc 11 27 00 00          mov    $0x2711,%esp
> > +    6ba8:      bb 11 27 00 00          mov    $0x2711,%ebx
> >      6bad:      00 89 f6 83 bc 24       add    %cl,0x24bc83f6(%ecx)
> >      6bb3:      84 00                   test   %al,(%eax)
> >      6bb5:      00 00                   add    %al,(%eax)
> > 
> > Thats it.
> > The point is i thought and hoped that gcc abstract syntax tree constructor is
> > indentation invariant, and that is seemingly not true.
> 
> It's okay, no need to worry.  See the "ud2a"s just above the differences?
> Those are BUG()s, and they're going to be followed by a short __LINE__
> then __FILE__ pointer.  Your indentation change removed one line, so the
> BUG()'s __LINE__ numbers have gone down one.  (And it takes a while for
> the disassembly to get back to sanity with the instructions thereafter.)

	Uhhuh, i see now... those by-one differences looked strange for me... :-)

> 
> Hugh
> 
> 

-- 
regards, Samium Gromoff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:46    [from the cache]
©2003-2008