--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-02 23:50 ---
Subject: Bug 27850
Author: amylaar
Date: Fri Jun 2 23:50:11 2006
New Revision: 114332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114332
Log:
PR other/27850
* Makefile.in (stm
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-01 15:23 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> --with-headers with a combined build is not really a good thing.
>
--with-headers is required for cross compilers in order to build a working
libgcov. A working libgcov is requir
words: build
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: sh-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27850
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-12 17:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=11448)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11448&action=view)
With the translation result for this file, the testcase can be linked
This file provides a definition
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-12 16:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=11447)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11447&action=view)
test case
Compiled for either sh-elf or i686-pc-linux-gnu, currrent mainline cc1plus does
not gener
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27574
--- Comment #12 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-08 21:09
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> The patch looks good - are you going to test and submit it?
I hope so, however at the moment I have trouble with newlib. The autoconf
upgrade seems rather half-baked at the mom
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-08 19:44 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> It seems that this move insn is generated at loop-invariant.c:
> move_invariant_reg().
Yes. In general, we say that we don't want such SUBREGS to appear in the
first place,
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 18:21 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > In 3.x, double -> char/int conversion was done consistently with the
> > documented
> > behaviour of integer -> signed intege
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 17:53 ---
In 3.x, double -> char/int conversion was done consistently with the documented
behaviour of integer -> signed integer type conversion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.0/gcc/Integers-implementatio
MED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27394
--- Comment #10 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-27 15:35
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created an attachment (id=11305)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11305&action=view) [edit]
> proposed patch for 4.1
>
The assignment
i
--- Comment #8 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-20 21:09 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I suggest you test on an architecture that traps on unaligned accesses, so as
> ia64 with the correct prctrl setup.
I don't have access to an ia64 host, but sh-elf is a STRIC
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-20 20:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=11305)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11305&action=view)
proposed patch for 4.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27226
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-20 18:58 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created an attachment (id=11304)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11304&action=view) [edit]
> proposed patch
>
Needs some more work.
--
ht
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-20 18:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=11304)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11304&action=view)
proposed patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27226
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-20 18:05 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> You might want to dive into builtins.c:get_pointer_alignment.
>
Hmm, indeed, I see that in 3.5.0 20040512, expand_builtin_memcpy
has found a dest_align of 32 and proceeded to
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-20 15:58 ---
This worked in 3.5.0 20040512 (experimental), but failed in 3.5.0 20040630
(experimental)
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27226
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 19:35 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'd like to add Joern to the CC list.
>
> I've looked the rtl dumps for the testcase. It seems that
> the wrong code is generated during the peephole2 optimizati
--- Comment #7 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 11:45 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> > -#define INDEX_REG_CLASS \
> > - (!ALLOW_INDEXED_ADDRESS ? NO_REGS : TARGET_SHMEDIA ? GENERAL_REGS :
> > R0_REGS)
> > +#define INDEX_REG_CLASS_FOR_MODE(MODE) \
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 20:09 ---
Subject: Bug 27060
Author: amylaar
Date: Wed Apr 12 20:09:41 2006
New Revision: 112898
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112898
Log:
2006-04-12 J"orn Rennecke <[EMAIL PROTECT
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 19:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=11251)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11251&action=view)
proposed patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27117
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 13:46 ---
sh64 has indexed addressing, but the addition is always done as 64 bit,
and there are currently no implemenmtations that allow the 64 bit logical
address space to be re-mapped into a 32 physical address space
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-07 18:07 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> File this first with gdb as it is gdb's sources which are have the warning in
> it, if they say the warning is bogus, file a real bug report with the
> preprocessed source.
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27074
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-06 15:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=11218)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11218&action=view)
untested patch
If this is not blocking the fix for some more serious bug, maybe we should wait
with th
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-06 15:26 ---
This does not actually affect lib1funcs.asm, since we don't have access to
gcc's output modifiers there anyway.
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-06 14:14 ---
This can be fixed by providing an additional library, which provides
udivsi3_i4i and sdivsi3_i4i implementations that are comparable in speed and
size to what we had before, and which is linked in in preference to
org
ReportedBy: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: sh4-*-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27060
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-06 14:00 ---
I intend to introduce a new modifier for the first part of a 64 bit value -
I suppose %t is best suited for that - and change %T for little endian to be
equivalent to %S.
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
ht for floating
point registers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #26 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-21 14:24
---
(In reply to comment #25)
> can we close this?
>
No, we still have to actually re-enable the cross-jumping code,
and we haven't even gotten to the review of the if-conversion part.
--
http://
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-15 16:22 ---
The g++ tests still fail, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-03/msg01000.html
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 22:42 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Yes, if you need to detect loops, call the routine to detect natural loops.
> This is the way of the future.
> LOOP_NOTES are not.
Is flow_loops_find and the data that it init
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 20:52 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Actually there is nothing that uses LOOP_NOTEs other than the old RTL loop
> optimizer. At least, nothing that _should_ use it. Wanna know about loops?
> Find natural loops i
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 15:13 ---
Mark, why isn't this marked as a regression? Before this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-03/msg01422.html ,
we rather erred on the side of copying too much and possibly aborting.
Now we sil
--- Comment #8 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-15 21:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=10857)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10857&action=view)
infrastructure patch - defective
(In reply to comment #7)
> This should be a relatively straightf
--- Comment #18 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-15 13:28
---
Subject: Bug 25335
Author: amylaar
Date: Wed Feb 15 13:28:05 2006
New Revision: 11
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=11
Log:
PR middle-end/25335
* r
--- Comment #7 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 21:27 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> There's currently no way for a back-end to describe that an auto-inc operation
> might be an early-clobber. The obvious '&<>' in the constraint does
--- Comment #11 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 18:55
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> IA-64 is a secondary platform, and Fortran is not a release critical language.
>
But reload is neither specific to IA-64 nor Fortran, so this is a generic
latent wrong-co
--- Comment #8 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 18:30 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Working on a patch.
> Fixing this issue has a deep "type" implications on the way we currently
> hand inputs with erronous types whereas trying to progress as much as
--- Comment #12 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 18:15
---
(In reply to comment #11)
P.S.: top displayed 34% memory usage near the end of the compilation,
on a machine with 2 GB of RAM.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24605
--- Comment #11 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 18:11
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Using gcc version 4.1.0 2005 (experimental) I still get a segfault for the
> second test case with -O2.
I tried this testcase at -O2 on an i686-pc-linux-gnu X sh-elf compiler,
--- Comment #8 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 14:48 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Fixed.
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 14:46 ---
Subject: Bug 26141
Author: amylaar
Date: Tue Feb 14 14:46:33 2006
New Revision: 110971
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110971
Log:
PR target/26141
gcc:
--- Comment #20 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-14 14:36
---
Subject: Bug 16194
Author: amylaar
Date: Tue Feb 14 14:36:15 2006
New Revision: 110970
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110970
Log:
PR inline-asm/16194
2006-01-31 J"orn Ren
--- Comment #7 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-13 19:01 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I believe that this error occurs because vax.h defines
> PCC_STATIC_STRUCT_RETURN.
> Removing this define allows the complilation of this file to complete.
FWIW that means that
--- Comment #14 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-13 15:33
---
Subject: Bug 25335
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Feb 13 15:32:57 2006
New Revision: 110916
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110916
Log:
Add PR marker for:
PR middle-e
--- Comment #9 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-10 18:22 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> There's certainly a good case for warning about packing that's likely not to
> have the desired results - we've been bitten by that before. But that doesn't
>
--- Comment #12 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-10 17:42
---
I get the following code for rld-legit2.c with the patch I am currently
testing:
_g:
subq 4,$sp
move $srp,[$sp]
subq 40,$sp
movem $r8,[$sp]
move $r10,$srp
move.d
--- Comment #19 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 21:53
---
(In reply to comment #17)
I am currently testing the back-merged patch in the 4.1 branch on
i686-pc-linux-gnu native, X sh-elf, X sh64-elf, X arm-elf and X cris-elf.
I have no intention on working on this bug in
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 21:45 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I am currently regtesting the backported patch (merged cleanly except for
ChangeLogs) in the 4.1 branch for sh-elf and sh64-elf.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26141
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 20:54 ---
Subject: Bug 26141
Author: amylaar
Date: Thu Feb 9 20:54:12 2006
New Revision: 110811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110811
Log:
PR target/26141
gcc:
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 20:26 ---
I got a patch... now where to put the testcase...
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-09 19:17
---
Subject: Bug 16194
Author: amylaar
Date: Thu Feb 9 19:17:09 2006
New Revision: 110810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110810
Log:
PR inline-asm/16194
gcc:
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 19:05 ---
Confirmed for revision 110699
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 21:56
---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I'm not surprised that decl_overlaps_hard_reg_set_p is only used in
> config/cris/cris.c or that it may seem limited in its implementation.
> It's just a convenienc
--- Comment #11 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 22:32
---
(In reply to comment #9)
P.S.: For the 4.1 branch and older release branches, it is sufficient to swap
the order of the calls to emit_reload_insns and subst_reloads.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #14 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 22:15
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Patch here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00868.html>.
Considering the issues Jeffrey Law has brought up, a function that calls itself
recursively for subex
--- Comment #9 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 20:19 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Visual inspection indicates that this patch fixes the testcase:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg02229.html
Can you confirm?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #8 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 16:32 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Re: "needing two rounds". Looks like you're hung up on my choice of words.
> I suggest ignore that and instead just run the test-case.
>
The patch for PR m
--- Comment #13 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 16:28
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Subject: Bug 24912
>
> Author: hp
> Date: Sat Nov 19 21:56:17 2005
> New Revision: 107231
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=1072
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 20:24 ---
> Reload seems to need two rounds, but the emitted reload insns for each pass
> is left around. This is exposed but not actually caused by the fix for
> PR middle-end/24912.
Reload should be only called
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:38 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Strange - both on mainline and the 4.1 branch, I can reproduce this (albeit
> with
> a more sensible variable name of "u") for i686-pc-linux-gnu native, but not
> f
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:31 ---
> It appears we actually don't have any way to query from the
> frontend-indenpendent code if we can mark something as
> safely.
^ addressable
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26004
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 18:29 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This is caused by the following code in gimplifier:
> 3297if (use_target)
> 3298 {
> 3299CALL_EXPR_RETURN_SLOT_OPT (
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 17:42 ---
Strange - both on mainline and the 4.1 branch, I can reproduce this (albeit
with
a more sensible variable name of "u") for i686-pc-linux-gnu native, but not for
a cross to sh-elf. Yet the failing mark_a
--- Comment #23 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 17:22
---
Fixed on mainline and the 4.1 branch.
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 16:19
---
Subject: Bug 14798
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Jan 30 16:19:11 2006
New Revision: 110401
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110401
Log:
PR target/14798:
gcc:
--- Comment #21 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 15:07
---
Subject: Bug 14798
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Jan 30 15:07:43 2006
New Revision: 110398
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110398
Log:
PR target/14798:
gcc:
* sh.c (pragma_i
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-27 16:17 ---
Fixed by:
r110275 | zack | 2006-01-26 21:21:42 + (Thu, 26 Jan 2006) | 11 lines
* genconditions.c (write_header): In generated code, #ifdef out
all includes and fake declarations, except
Summary: writer written by write_writer doesn't quote where
necessary
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc do
--- Comment #20 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-26 15:22
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01782.html was regression tested
successfully for sh-elf in Revision 110178.
However, it makes sense to write or collect a number of new test cases to test
the affected
--- Comment #19 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-25 17:27
---
There is even more wrong with the way we translate function pro-epilogue
affecting pragmas to attributes.
When we used only pragmas, the pragma could placed not only in front of the
function, but also anywhere
--- Comment #7 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-24 23:09 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It seems condjump_equiv_p (info, false) returns false because
> f1->dest and f2->dest are forwarder blocks:
This means that they have to have been forwarder blocks to forw
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 13:10 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> *** Bug 25694 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
There is the further issue that the toplevel Makefile claims that 'all'
is a target to build a non-bootstr
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 13:08 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Accepting this, but it is not a blocker as all-gcc is not even documented
> anywhere.
>
If all-gcc is not documented that means only that we need not keep this as an
interface
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-06 17:27 ---
The toplevel makefile has a target 'all' which allegedly does a native
non-bootstrap build. However, that still does a multi-stage build,
thus building everything that is intended to be debugged with
duct: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25694
--- Comment #24 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 14:37
---
Subject: Bug 20070
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Dec 19 14:36:59 2005
New Revision: 108792
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108792
Log:
* cfgcleanup.c: Temporarily revert patche
--- Comment #36 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-19 12:01
---
While the patch will stop the bug from being triggered by the test case,
it does not fix th underlying combiner bug.
Any REG_NO_CONFLICT block could potentially be rendered invalid by an
inappropriate instruction
--- Comment #28 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-16 14:37
---
(In reply to comment #25)
> Smarter folks than me (iant ;-) suggest that "a multi-word rotate will
> normally
> need all the input bits when setting any of the output bits", so the entire
--- Comment #11 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-14 13:41
---
Subject: Bug 25397
Author: amylaar
Date: Wed Dec 14 13:41:22 2005
New Revision: 108508
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108508
Log:
2005-12-14 J"orn Rennecke <[EMAIL PROTECT
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-13 22:00 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I believe so.
>
I didn't have any luck with either x86-64-elf or x86-64-linux, bfd refused to
build. So I looked for the latest x86-64 posting to gcc-testresults, which had
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-13 21:21 ---
Is building a cross-compiler configured with --target=x86-64-elf likely to
work up to this point and reproduce the problem?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25397
--- Comment #22 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-13 13:41
---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Created an attachment (id=10463)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10463&action=view) [edit]
> a full set of debugging dumps
>
> Re. comment #
--- Comment #21 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-13 13:16
---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Created an attachment (id=10461)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10461&action=view) [edit]
> Instruction stream (stripped) before scheduling
>
(
--- Comment #23 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-13 13:04
---
Subject: Bug 20070
Author: amylaar
Date: Tue Dec 13 13:04:18 2005
New Revision: 108480
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108480
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/20070 / part1
--- Comment #16 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-12 20:28
---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I can reproduce this on hppa2.0-suse-linux-gnu with the "4.2-20051210"
> snapshot.
Could you make a full set of debugging dumps (i.e. from compiling with -da)
ava
--- Comment #22 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 13:31
---
Subject: Bug 20070
Author: amylaar
Date: Wed Dec 7 13:31:41 2005
New Revision: 108164
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108164
Log:
2005-12-07 J"orn Rennecke <
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-24 18:56 ---
Subject: Bug 21623
Author: amylaar
Date: Thu Nov 24 18:55:53 2005
New Revision: 107468
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107468
Log:
PR target/21623:
* re
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-22 22:57 ---
Subject: Bug 21623
Author: amylaar
Date: Tue Nov 22 22:57:35 2005
New Revision: 107381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=107381
Log:
Preparatory work for PR targ
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 21:48 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Try -fsplit-ivs-in-unroller
>
No, that doesn't help.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24815
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 21:44 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> LOOP NOTES should be removed in 4.2 when loop.c is removed.
>
There is more than loop.c which currently uses LOOP NOTES.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24814
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 21:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=10222)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10222&action=view)
test case
This testcase, compiled with -O2 -funroll-loops, shows numerous reg+index
addressing being
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: sh-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24815
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 20:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=10221)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10221&action=view)
test case
When compiling this test case with -O2 -funroll-loops for i686 or sh-elf, the
NOTE_INSN_LOOP_
t org
ReportedBy: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24814
--- Comment #12 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-11 16:32
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], PR 4520.
Thanks. This PR is indeed about a different issue, so I have opened
PR24801 to track the debug info issue.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
501 - 600 of 799 matches
Mail list logo
