gcc 2.95/PPC bug

When trying to find the cause for crashes of LAME, I think I found a
bug in the gcc.  The code below (which is actually a simpilified excerpt
from LAME) will NOT pass the parameter `buggy' correctly to the
subroutine.  Changing the number/type/sorting of the parameters will,
however, produce a working code in some cases.  Some facts about the
system:

  Machines: PowerMac 7300 (604e), LinuxPPC 2.2.11
	    PB "Lombard" (G3), LinuxPPC 2.2.12
  gcc:      versions 2.95 and 2.95.1
  options:  gcc -O0 -Wall gcc-2.95-ppc-bug.c -o gcc-2.95-ppc-bug

Is this a known (and hopefully already fixed ;-) bug, or should it go
directly to gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org?

Thanks, Albrecht.

---snip here:gcc-2.95-ppc-bug.c-----------------------------------------------
#include <stdio.h>

void vartest (double xr[2][2][576],
              int l3_enc[2][2][576],
              int var1, int var2, int var3, int var4, int var5, int var6,
              int var7, int var8, int var9, double var10, int buggy)
{
  printf ("%d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %g %d\n",
          var1, var2, var3, var4, var5, var6, var7, var8, var9, var10, buggy);
}

int main ()
{
  double xxx [2][2][576];
  int eee [2][2][576];

  vartest (xxx, eee, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.1, 11);

  return 0;
}
---end of bug demo code-------------------------------------------------------

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

At 08:03 21.01.00 , Albrecht Dreß wrote:

When trying to find the cause for crashes of LAME, I think I found a
bug in the gcc.  The code below (which is actually a simpilified excerpt
from LAME) will NOT pass the parameter `buggy' correctly to the
subroutine.  Changing the number/type/sorting of the parameters will,
however, produce a working code in some cases.  Some facts about the
system:

  Machines: PowerMac 7300 (604e), LinuxPPC 2.2.11
            PB "Lombard" (G3), LinuxPPC 2.2.12
  gcc:      versions 2.95 and 2.95.1
  options:  gcc -O0 -Wall gcc-2.95-ppc-bug.c -o gcc-2.95-ppc-bug

Is this a known (and hopefully already fixed ;-) bug, or should it go
directly to gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org?

I believe this is fixed in my current gcc-2.95.2 RPM-set available on
<ftp://devel.linuxppc.org/users/fsirl/>.

Franz.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Franz Sirl wrote:

quoted

Is this a known (and hopefully already fixed ;-) bug, or should it go
directly to gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org?

I believe this is fixed in my current gcc-2.95.2 RPM-set available on
<ftp://devel.linuxppc.org/users/fsirl/>.

It is fixed, thanks a lot!

Yours, Albrecht.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/