[avr-gcc-list] Re: WinAVR 20050214 (gcc 3.4.3) and optimizer bug.

[Vesa Jääskeläinen]

Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote:
>
> > > Which one is missing do you think?  The full assembler code shows
> > > all of them:
>
> > In this clause:
> >        if (ppv && (*ppv != 0)) {
>
> > We are missing code for (ppv != 0), but code for *ppv != 0 is found.
>
> You're right.  You should have written that in your first mail --
> as you see, it wasn't obvious *which* comparision you meant, and
> as there are so many of them, it's easy enough to miss one.

I am sorry about that, I was probably too much looking at the problem 
and forgot to document that.

> I think you gotta write a bug report for GCC here.

As there is a workaround to use "-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks", 
should I still file a bug. For me it still looks like a bug as it 
doesn't happen everytime, just occasionally. eg. disable that bv usage 
and problem disappears.

Thanks,
Vesa Jääskeläinen