[Bug target/78660] [7 Regression] 7.0 bootstrap fail on mips64el-unknow-linux: configure-stage2-target-libgcc' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660 Matthew Fortune changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/78660] [7 Regression] 7.0 bootstrap fail on mips64el-unknow-linux: configure-stage2-target-libgcc' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660 --- Comment #8 from Matthew Fortune --- Created attachment 40518 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40518=edit testcase I have narrowed this bug down to a mis-compilation of gcc/c/c-decl.c where there are a few code

[Bug rtl-optimization/59461] missed zero-extension elimination in the combiner

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461 --- Comment #10 from Matthew Fortune --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9) > > This is a notoriously hard topic to address. All instructions affect the > > full 64-bit register including those that do 32-bit arithmetic i.e. they > >

[Bug rtl-optimization/59461] missed zero-extension elimination in the combiner

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461 --- Comment #8 from Matthew Fortune --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7) > > I'm yet to get my head around what the issue is but if anyone has a pointer > > based on the potential impact on MIPS64 as described above then I'd be > >

[Bug rtl-optimization/59461] missed zero-extension elimination in the combiner

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59461 Matthew Fortune changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/15826] don't use "if" to extract a single bit bit-field.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826 Matthew Fortune changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com

[Bug target/78660] [7 Regression] 7.0 bootstrap fail on mips64el-unknow-linux: configure-stage2-target-libgcc' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660 --- Comment #3 from Matthew Fortune --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #2) > I can't reproduce on a cross build. Is there a mips64el box on the compile > farm or somewhere public so someone can look at this? The following machines

[Bug target/78176] [MIPS] miscompiles ldxc1 with large pointers on 32-bits

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78176 --- Comment #9 from Matthew Fortune --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #8) > > The expansion looks like an acceptable transformation to me i.e. it is not > > introducing the overflow for the offending pointer just maintaining what is >

[Bug target/78176] [MIPS] miscompiles ldxc1 with large pointers on 32-bits

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78176 --- Comment #7 from Matthew Fortune --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6) > > The issue may stem from the C front end where the dumps start off as below. > > Note that the '-1' in kappa-1 has ended up being represented as 1073741823 >

[Bug target/78176] [MIPS] miscompiles ldxc1 with large pointers on 32-bits

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78176 Matthew Fortune changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com

[Bug java/71917] [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917 --- Comment #12 from Matthew Fortune --- Created attachment 39593 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39593=edit Proposed fix Attached fix should resolve the issue on sparc64 BE. The original attempt at the fix for mips64el is

[Bug java/71917] [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917 --- Comment #10 from Matthew Fortune --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9) > > I'll certainly check on this but I did run the fix on both big and little > > endian MIPS which seems to suggest there isn't a double adjustment overall. >

[Bug java/71917] [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917 --- Comment #8 from Matthew Fortune --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7) > > 2016-07-13 Matthew Fortune > > > > * interpret-run.cc: Use ffi_arg for FFI integer return types. > > so we now have a

[Bug target/68273] [5/6/7 Regression] Wrong code on mips/mipsel due to (invalid?) peeking at alignments in function_arg.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273 --- Comment #37 from Matthew Fortune --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #36) > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273 > > > &

[Bug java/71917] [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917 Matthew Fortune changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com

[Bug target/68273] [5/6/7 Regression] Wrong code on mips/mipsel due to (invalid?) peeking at alignments in function_arg.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273 --- Comment #35 from Matthew Fortune --- (In reply to Aurelien Jarno from comment #33) > (In reply to Hector Oron from comment #32) > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #31) > > > eipa_sra introduces the remaining SSA name with

[Bug rtl-optimization/65862] [MIPS] IRA/LRA issue: integers spilled to floating-point registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862 --- Comment #6 from Matthew Fortune matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com --- (In reply to Robert Suchanek from comment #5) I am not sure, that the result code is better as we access memory 3 times instead of access to $f20. On one hand, yes

[Bug target/64569] New: [MIPS] Unable to build soft-float in conjunction with binutils 2.25

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com binutils 2.25 for MIPS includes more aggressive checks on ABI usage and in particular warns when given code that claims to be soft-float via

[Bug target/63848] [5.0 regression] FAIL: c-c++-common/torture/builtin-arith-overflow-17.c -O0 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63848 Matthew Fortune matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug target/51729] dspr2-MULT.c and dspr2-MULTU.c fail for MIPS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51729 Matthew Fortune matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clm

[Bug rtl-optimization/58461] [MIPS] Using LRA instead of reload increases code size for mips16

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58461 --- Comment #3 from Matthew Fortune matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com --- (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #2) I think it'd be wrong for the backend to say that moves between MIPS16 registers and other general registers are more

[Bug rtl-optimization/58461] [MIPS] Using LRA instead of reload increases code size for mips16

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58461 --- Comment #1 from Matthew Fortune matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com --- Created attachment 30853 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30853action=edit Patch to enable LRA for mips16

[Bug rtl-optimization/58461] New: [MIPS] Using LRA instead of reload increases code size for mips16

Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com Created attachment 30852 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30852action=edit Test case to trigger LRA reload issue While