From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jun 14 19:06:32 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA19904
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 19:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hq.icb.chel.su (hq.icb.chel.su [193.125.10.33])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA19899
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 19:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (babkin@localhost) by hq.icb.chel.su (8.8.3/8.6.5) id IAA22124; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 08:07:47 +0600 (ESD)
From: "Serge A. Babkin" <babkin@hq.icb.chel.su>
Message-Id: <199706150207.IAA22124@hq.icb.chel.su>
Subject: Re: C optimizer bug ?
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 08:07:46 +0600 (ESD)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <10597.866338825@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Jun 14, 97 06:40:25 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


[ the explanation skipped ]
> 
> For the proper stack offset to `b'?  This is a compiler bug."
> 
> *That* is the kind of thing that compiler folks can act on.

I was too lazy to do this but if it's going to give any effect
I can do it.

> 
> What you have reported is not, however, and it's almost certainly
> likely to generate no response at all.  That helps neither you nor
> us. :-)

There is at least one useful point: should the optimizer be used for
kernel ? Indeed I got the first bad experience with optimizers
when I wrote my first driver for SCO. Now I know why SCO
does not use optimizer for kernel :-)

-SB