[Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs

2013-01-29 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699 --- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-29 21:12:56 UTC --- I've checked this again on rev. 19 and the problem doesn't seem to happen anymore. It also doesn't show up in the latest SH4 test result post

[Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs

2012-12-06 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs

2012-12-06 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699 Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs

2012-11-25 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0

[Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs

2012-10-09 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699 Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs

2012-10-09 Thread kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699 --- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10 00:03:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) I'm wondering whether there is anything after reload that actually needs address validation. I guess that after the

[Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs

2012-10-09 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699 --- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10 00:22:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) It looks we've got reg+reg+const addressing. It seems that reload_completed simply means that hard register are allocated

[Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs

2012-09-30 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699 --- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-30 21:09:29 UTC --- Doing this... Index: gcc/config/sh/sh.c === --- gcc/config/sh/sh.c(revision

[Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs

2012-09-26 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699 --- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-26 20:05:47 UTC --- Hm, maybe implementing TARGET_MODE_DEPENDENT_ADDRESS_P would help this case?

[Bug target/54699] [4.8 Regression] [SH] gfortran.dg/class_array_9.f03 ICEs

2012-09-25 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699 --- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-25 11:56:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) Thanks for tracing this. The mem store insn (set (subreg:SF (mem/c:DI (reg/f:SI 14 r14)) 4) (reg:SF 0 r0)) looks