Re: [avr-gcc-list] possible compiler bug?

[Joerg Wunsch]

"Theodore A. Roth" <address@hidden> wrote:

> But seeing this result, your argument is starting to seem more valid. The 
> desired result would be:
> 
>       set_pwm:
>               movw r30,r24
>               std Z+1,r23
>               st Z,r22
>               ret

How about this one?  I'm not sure whether it'll catch all occasions,
but at least Brian's case seems to be solved with this.

--- gcc/config/avr/avr.c.orig   Mon Aug 12 15:13:56 2002
+++ gcc/config/avr/avr.c        Thu Aug 29 12:53:14 2002
@@ -2711,8 +2711,8 @@
             }
         }
       else
-        return  *l=2, (AS2 (st ,%0,%A1)    CR_TAB
-                       AS2 (std,%0+1,%B1));
+        return  *l=2, (AS2 (std,%0+1,%B1)    CR_TAB
+                       AS2 (st ,%0,%A1));
     }
   else if (GET_CODE (base) == PLUS)
     {

-- 
J"org Wunsch                                           Unix support engineer
address@hidden        http://www.interface-systems.de/~j/
avr-gcc-list at http://avr1.org