1 files changed, 69 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/gcc_arm/testsuite/gcc.wendy/gnu20.c b/gcc_arm/testsuite/gcc.wendy/gnu20.c
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..5c02677
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc_arm/testsuite/gcc.wendy/gnu20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+/*
+Return-Path: <ucsfcgl!reagan.ai.mit.edu!RUTGERS.EDU!RUTGERS.EDU!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!sys1!sneaky!gordon>
+Date: Tue Dec 15, 1987 at 10:25:42 cst
+From: uiucdcs!uiucuxc!sys1!sneaky!gordon@rutgers.edu (Gordon Burditt)
+Message-Id: <8712151625.AA15898@sneaky.UUCP>
+To: uiucdcs!uiucuxc!sys1!techsup!vaxnix!ron@rutgers.edu,
+        bug-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu
+Subject: gcc bug
+Sent: Tue Dec 15, 1987 at 10:25:42 cst
+
+I have been asked to pass along this bug report for gcc 1.15.
+I am having trouble figuring out from the ANSI spec whether this really
+is a bug or not.  ANSI says that side effects caused by function argument
+evaluation must be complete by the time the call is done, but how about side 
+effects in evaluating the function address?
+
+From: ron@vaxnix.tandy.COM (Ron Light)
+Date: Sat, 12 Dec 87 7:50:53 CST
+*/
+
+typedef int (*Inst)();		/* machine instruction */
+#define STOP (Inst)(0)
+
+Inst *pc;			/* program counter during execution */
+
+execute(p)			/* run the machine */
+Inst *p;
+{
+	for(pc = p; *pc != STOP;)
+		(*(*pc++))();
+}
+
+int inst();
+Inst instrs[] = {inst, inst, inst, STOP};
+int inst() {
+	if (pc == &instrs[1])
+		printf("Test passed\n");
+	else
+		printf("FAILED, pc = %x, instrs = %x\n", pc, instrs);
+	exit(0);
+}
+main()
+{
+
+	execute(instrs);
+}
+/*
+code produced by gcc:
+.text
+	.even
+.globl _execute
+_execute:
+	link a6,#0
+	movl a6@(8),_pc
+	jra L2
+L5:
+	movl _pc,a0
+	movl a0@,a0        ;<---------------------------+
+	jbsr a0@           ;                            |
+	addql #4,_pc       ; This should be here--------+
+L2:
+	movl _pc,a0
+	tstl a0@
+	jne L5
+	unlk a6
+	rts
+.comm _pc,4
+
+*/