From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43929BCAF; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:32:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ash25e.internode.on.net (ash25e.internode.on.net [203.16.214.182]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j5DJWJiv019356; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:32:20 +0200 Received: from Rosella (ppp35-43.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [59.167.35.43]) by ash25e.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j5DJWBpI099451; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 05:02:12 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from skaller@users.sourceforge.net) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] AMD64 ocamlopt bug From: John Skaller To: Xavier Leroy Cc: Jon Harrop , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20050613191900.GA4326@yquem.inria.fr> References: <1118295206.7145.165.camel@rosella.wigram> <36973.131.254.50.45.1118334009.squirrel@mail.irisa.fr> <1118357500.8693.80.camel@rosella.wigram> <200506110039.18279.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <1118515162.7212.39.camel@rosella.wigram> <20050613191900.GA4326@yquem.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 05:32:11 +1000 Message-Id: <1118691131.7142.9.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 42ADDF43.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocamlopt:01 bug:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 bug:01 uncommon:01 tail-call:01 stack:01 cvs:01 bug-fix:01 cvs:01 glebe:01 ...:98 wrote:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 21:19 +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > > > Whilst I personally prefer the ocaml native code compiler, > > > > at present I can't use it on my AMD64 as there appears > > > > > Do you think I shouldn't release for AMD64? > > > > See PR#3640 (in Incoming in the Bug Tracker) first: > > > > My guess is if you code works it works... the bug > > is fairly rare and only triggered in unusual > > circumstances .. but that is just a guess. > > Yes, PR#3640 is an AMD64-specific code generation bug. It occurs in > the uncommon case where a leaf function (a function that doesn't call > other functions except as a tail-call) accesses a parameter passed on > the stack (not in registers). As a rule of thumb, if your tail > functions have fewer than 9 arguments, you're safe. > > The bug is fixed in the CVS repository, 3.08 bug-fix branch. Thanks! Nice work finding it! And dumb question: does that mean the main CVS branch is also fixed? (or will the bug fixed branch be merged in when 3.09 is released?) -- John Skaller, skaller at users.sf.net PO Box 401 Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia Ph:61-2-96600850 Download Felix here: http://felix.sf.net