lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: ALERT! Stay away from patched gcc's (was Re: 2.0.22 will be the last version)
From
Date
>>>>> "Linus" == Linus Torvalds <torvalds@cc.helsinki.fi> writes:

Linus> As some people have asked me how the bad code actually looks
Linus> like, I'm posting a short description of what happe with the
Linus> bad gcc version.

Thank you, Bwana.

Linus> The problem is that this bad gcc doesn't take this into
Linus> account, the code produced in sd_init_onedisk looks like this:
...
Linus> ...
Linus> call scsi_do_cmd
Linus> addl $0x1c,%esp
Linus> movl 16(%esp),%ecx
Linus> movl 16(%esp),%eax

Linus> /* down operation starts here */
Linus> movl $0x18d9dc,%eax
Linus> decl (%eax)
Linus> js 0x19bfa0 <down_failed>
Linus> /* end of down operations */

Linus> movl 0xf0(%edi),%esi
Linus> incl %ebx
Linus> testl %esi,%esi
Linus> je sd_init_onedisk+633
Linus> movb 0x8a(%edi),%dl
Linus> ...

I apologize for not understanding your explanation.

Are you saying that if the output doesn't look like that, the GCC is O.K.?
Or just that the `decl (%eax)' is where the badness lies?

This is what my GCC 2.7.2 with a no-sr-bug patch produces (from 2.0.21
for i486):

call scsi_do_cmd
addl $28,%esp
movl %ebx,%ecx
#APP
# atomic down operation
1:
movl $1b,%eax
decl (%ebx)
js down_failed
#NO_APP
movl 240(%ebp),%edi
movl %edi,20(%esp)
decl %esi
testl %edi,%edi
je .L1721
testl %esi,%esi
jne .L1720

--
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be billed at $250/message.
What are the last two letters of "doesn't" and "can't"?
Coincidence? I think not.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.155 / U:0.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site