From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265776AbTF3G5h (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:57:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265771AbTF3G5h (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:57:37 -0400 Received: from [213.171.53.133] ([213.171.53.133]:16904 "EHLO gulipin.miee.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265783AbTF3G5f (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2003 02:57:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:13:06 +0400 From: Samium Gromoff To: Hugh Dickins Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [GCC] gcc vs. indentation Message-Id: <20030630101306.166e11fb.deepfire@ibe.miee.ru> In-Reply-To: References: <20030630092015.49dd6969.deepfire@ibe.miee.ru> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-debian-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:04:03 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins 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 > > 52ac: 0f 0b ud2a > > - 52ae: 7d 0d jge 52bd > > + 52ae: 7c 0d jl 52bd > > 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 > > 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 > > 5436: 89 1c 24 mov %ebx,(%esp,1) > > 5439: e8 fc ff ff ff call 543a > > @@ -7414,7 +7414,7 @@ > > 6ba2: 84 c0 test %al,%al > > 6ba4: 75 0a jne 6bb0 > > 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