https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64761
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon Feb 9 23:47:11 2015
New Revision: 220552
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220552root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/64761
Replace MD_REDIRECT_BRANCH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64761
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Feb 10 00:00:54 2015
New Revision: 220553
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220553root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/64761
[SH] Add jump insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64761
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64761
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34560
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34560action=edit
Update of Joern's patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64761
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34562
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34562action=edit
patch for dbr_schedule
-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: sh*-*-*
For SH, we have two failures on testsuite
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64761
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Even after these changes,
Error: displacement to defined symbol .L59 overflows 12-bit field
remains for va-arg-pack-1.c and a new failure
Error: displacement to defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64761
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34561
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34561action=edit
patch for crossing jump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29366
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
The patch works on a default sh-elf/newlib config -- it just uses the
single-thread fake atomics from libstdc++. Kaz, could you please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64300
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this has been addressed with r218760 by Makarov. Can we
close this as resolved?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61157
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for missing this PR. Yes, we can close this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64533
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Thu Jan 8 09:05:06 2015
New Revision: 219338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219338root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/64533
* config/sh/sh.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64533
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: sh*-*-*
The trunk compiler compiles
void *foo() { return alloca (0x400);}
to
foo:
mov.l r14,@-r15
mov r15,r1
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org, vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: sh*-*-*
Created attachment 34303
-- https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64300
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #2)
Thanks for reporting. I've just committed a patch focusing on the same
problem. Could you check that the patch solves
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64300
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #89 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34159
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34159action=edit
a reduced c++ test case (-O2 -std=gnu++11)
Here is related lines of lra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #88 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For the record, here is the sh-lra revisions.
218191: Merge from trunk revision 218173.
218192: Add legitimize_address_displacement target macto.
218193: Split QI/HImode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #85 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34135
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34135action=edit
patch to add -mlra option
I'd like to apply the patch to add a transitional option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
and a patch from somewhere else that seems related:
http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded/plain/recipes/gcc/gcc-4.5/sh4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
At least for sh4, it would have a historical reason. In the old
time, -m4-nofpu confused many users (including me). From its
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #84 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FYI, merge from trunk revision 217978 as sh-lra revision 217980 to
apply the lra remat changes on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64008
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #0)
Kaz, do you have any idea why these SUPPORT_SH* macros are needed? Why
isn't just every CPU/FPU type marked as supported?
I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #82 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #77)
Created attachment 33788 [details]
another reduced test case of compiler/vam
It seems that unsigned char memory accesses make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #83 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33992
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33992action=edit
a patch for the issue c#77
Interestingly, this reduces the total text size of CSiBE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #78 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33813
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33813action=edit
a trial patch for the issue c#76
With it, the generated code for c#76 test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #80 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #79)
Hm, maybe it's better to name this legitimize_address_displacement or
legitimize_address_offset?
Sure. I'm not sure whether
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #76 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33787
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33787action=edit
a reduced test case of SCiBE compiler/vam test
compiler/vam is a test which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #77 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33788
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33788action=edit
another reduced test case of compiler/vam
This is an another test case got from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #73 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #71)
I don't know the details and maybe I'm totally off here ... LRA is being
used for ARM and there are almost the same amount of GP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #75 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FYI, merge from trunk revision 216447 as r216529.
I've fixed c#55, c#59, c#61 and c#66 so to match this merge and committed
them on sh-lra as r216532, r216533, r216533
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #70 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'd like to apply the revised patches below to sh-lra branch for
looking at the problems easily. Oleg, is it OK for you?
c#55: Fixup the result of decompose_mem_address when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #69 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch in c#57 disables memory equiv substitution for the memory
with base+index and base+display addressing.
static bool
sh_cannot_substitute_equiv_p (rtx subst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #39 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #38)
... there are no new failures for -m4 -ml and -m4 -mb. I'm tempted to apply
it. Kaz, do you have any objections?
I have no objection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #33 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #32)
I'd propose the following for SH:
unsigned int __builtin_sh_get_fpscr ()
void __builtin_sh_set_fpscr (unsigned int)
Any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #12 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #11)
Kaz, could you please add the attached patch to your test run?
No new failures for the top level make -k check on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #30 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #29)
With this patch there are no new failures for -m4 -ml and -m4 -mb here,
except the ISR failures. I'll also test it for the other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #25 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #23)
Kaz, could you please have an early look at it?
The idea looks OK to me. Build fails on sh4-linux with the patch, though.
Maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
Kaz, could you please add the proposed patch to your test run and let me
know of the result? I'd like to sort this out before proceeding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
If the failures on my side go away after that, I'll commit
the patch from comment #2, OK?
Please go ahead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #63 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33705
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33705action=edit
CSiBE result-size.cvs sh-lra+c#29+c#55+c#57+c#61
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #64 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33706
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33706action=edit
CSiBE result-size.cvs trunk rev.215912
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #65 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We can see ~2% code size regression on average with CSiBE.
There are some cases which register elimination doesn't
work well. An example is
int foo (int x)
{
int y[100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #66 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33707
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33707action=edit
a possible patch
With it, foo is compiled to
foo:
sts.l pr,@-r15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #67 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33708
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33708action=edit
CSiBE result-runtime.cvs sh-lra+c#29+c#55+c#57+c#61+c#66
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #68 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33709
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33709action=edit
CSiBE result-runtime.cvs trunk rev.215912
0.54% runtime regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
Kaz, what's your opinion on making GBR to be call preserved by default?
Looks OK to me for 5.0. It's clearly an ABI change but a change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
change the
value for gbr in sh.h CALL_USED_REGISTERS from '1' to '0' and confirm that
everything is still OK?
The comment and document
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #60 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #59)
Yet another lra-assigns.c:1335 ICE when compiling nrrd/kernel.c of CSiBE/
teem-1.6.0 test. It looks that RA fails for FPUL_REGS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #61 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33692
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33692action=edit
a possible patch
I'm testing a patch to define a SH specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #3)
Do you have an opinion on that?
Looks the latter is enough for the released branches. I'm OK with eather way,
though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #59 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33688
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33688action=edit
reduced CSiBE teem-1.6.0 test (-O2 sh4-linux)
Yet another lra-assigns.c:1335 ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33526|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #58 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #57)
revised patch for the problem in c#25
I've looked into the remained ICEs for usual sh4-unknown-linux-gnu
test and got
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33657|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #53 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #52)
Created attachment 33632 [details]
Reduced case of error: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1335 with -m4
-ml -O2
.ira dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #54 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33657
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33657action=edit
A possible workaround
The patch is trying to fix the result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #49 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #48)
The array at i = 699 doesn't seem to contain anything valid.
It looks that
(expr_list:DF (use (mem:DF (reg/f:SI 699) [0 S8 A32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #40 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've tried to see what is going on with reload loop on movsf_ie
for gcc.c-torture/compile/20050113-1.c -O1 -m4 -ml.
It looks that the problem starts at reloading
(insn 15 10 18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #41 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33601
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33601action=edit
A trial patch for reload-loop problem
My first trial is to define a special
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #43 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #42)
PR 54699 comes into my mind when seeing the movsf_ie patterns ... having
another movsf_ie pattern is discomforting. But if it makes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #44 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon Sep 29 01:24:33 2014
New Revision: 215676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215676root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/55212
* config/sh/sh-protos.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #45 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon Sep 29 01:27:03 2014
New Revision: 215677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215677root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/55212
* config/sh/sh.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #34 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #33)
Will clobbering function-value registers before the call not cause problems
on SH5, where function-value registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #36 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #35)
I'm just wondering ... how did/does that work without LRA (i.e. with IRA)?
I'm not sure about the old reload. LRA makes only 3 uses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #39 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #38)
Hm, you're right, but to me that indicates the patch covering-up a bug
elsewhere than in the sh port.
Would it be better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #31 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33556
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33556action=edit
A bit reduced test case of pr38338.c (-O0 -m4 -ml)
That case has only one basic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #32 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33557
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33557action=edit
Patch for SH untyped_call
* config/sh/sh.md (untyped_call): Clobber function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #25 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33524
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33524action=edit
Reduced test case for ICE in assign_by_spill
I've looked into what is going
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #26 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33525
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33525action=edit
.reload dump file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #27 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33526
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33526action=edit
A trial patch
It disables equiv substitution when the equiv includes some reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #28 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33527
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33527action=edit
Another reduced test case (with -m4 -ml -O2 -std=gnu99)
Here is a test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #29 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33528
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33528action=edit
A trial patch
The patch is to refrain from changing to class R0_REGS for r943
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #21 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've run check-gcc for sh-lra branch on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu
and got
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes83035
# of unexpected failures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #22 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33505
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33505action=edit
A possible patch
These last two errors could be fixed with the attached patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #24 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Wed Sep 17 23:24:40 2014
New Revision: 215341
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215341root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/55212
* config/sh/predicates.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62111
--- Comment #18 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Sep 2 22:28:29 2014
New Revision: 214832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214832root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/62111
* config/sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62261
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Sep 2 22:32:29 2014
New Revision: 214833
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214833root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/62261
* config/sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62111
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62261
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62312
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
The patch below fixes it. I'd apply it to trunk and 4.9 without further
testing, as it's obvious, I think. Kaz, if you'd like to run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43744
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de, olegendo at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target: sh*-*-*
Created attachment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54418
--- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #6)
I'm seeing this issue again when compiling postgresql-9.4 with gcc-4.9.1,
but I am not sure whether the issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62261
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Wed Aug 27 23:25:14 2014
New Revision: 214612
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214612root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/62261
* config/sh
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dhowells at redhat dot com, olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: sh64-*
This was reported originally by dhowells at #c7 of PR62111.
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62111
--- Comment #17 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've filed a new PR62261 for the issue in #c7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62111
--- Comment #16 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon Aug 25 00:37:51 2014
New Revision: 214413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214413root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/62111
* config/sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62111
--- Comment #14 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33372
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33372action=edit
A possible patch
It seems that the ICE in #c7 came from the negative shift count
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62111
--- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A reduced test case is always welcome.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62111
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61844
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61844
--- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, I'm wrong about the insn 440 in #7 doesn't require reload.
I've missed psuedo reg 736. Anyways there is an issue for
base+index reg addressing for *movsi_media.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61844
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The testcase in #7 can be compiled successfully when -mindexed-addressing
is added. It looks that base+index reg addressing mode is disabled
for shmedia32 and shcompact
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61550
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: sh*-*-*
Created attachment 32966
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61550
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
sh.c:prepare_move_operands has the code for TLS addresses which
shouldn't be run when reload in progress in the first place.
I'm testing the patch below.
--- ORIG/trunk/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61550
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Wed Jun 18 22:11:55 2014
New Revision: 211807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211807root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/61550
* config/sh/sh.c
201 - 300 of 551 matches
Mail list logo
