--- Comment #11 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 21:36 ---
Subject: Bug 44392
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Sep 8 21:35:48 2010
New Revision: 164029
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164029
Log:
2010-09-08 Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 16:42 ---
Confirmed based on comment #2
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-04 07:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=21692)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21692action=view)
Reduced testcase for ICE
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45533
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 07:19 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 45444 ***
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 07:19 ---
*** Bug 45514 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 10:43 ---
I don't see this with an arm-linux-gnu toolchain for r163798.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 08:49 ---
This is partially subsumed by the other bug at PR45444
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 45444 ***
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 08:49 ---
*** Bug 44670 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 09:07 ---
Leaving this open as per comment #4
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42172
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 10:31 ---
I'm not sure how well supported the old Linux target is with respect to the
Neon builtins. It never received much testing and probably needs work since
this target is in maintenance mode only.
--
ramana at gcc
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 10:34 ---
I'm not sure where this will be handled but I can see this with trunk today.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 11:53 ---
Subject: Bug 45321
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Sep 1 11:52:55 2010
New Revision: 163726
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163726
Log:
2010-09-01 Mikael Pettersson mi...@it.uu.se
PR
--- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 12:03 ---
Fixed.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #14 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 12:41 ---
Patches should be submitted to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org. This is a 4.3 only
issue.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-01 14:54 ---
With r163667 and fixes for PR45444 applied I don't see issues with a v7-a
bootstrap. Can we see if a later version works for you ?
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-31 08:15 ---
confirmed. I was working on fixing this but you beat my patch to it.
cheers
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-27 12:14 ---
can this be backported to the 4.5 branch please ?
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-23 14:31 ---
Trunk of a recent vintage generates -
@ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymous_args = 0
push{r4, lr}
bl a
movwr4, #:lower16:b
movtr4, #:upper16:b
uxtbr0
--- Comment #14 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-19 08:28 ---
Subject: Bug 45070
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Aug 19 08:27:59 2010
New Revision: 163367
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163367
Log:
For Ian Bolton ian.bol...@arm.com
2010-08-19 Ian Bolton
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #7 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-10 22:17 ---
Is this now fixed ?
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-06 09:13 ---
If you don't give us a testcase we can't verify / see what's going wrong here.
Please report bugs as described here. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ .
Thanks,
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-03 14:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=21375)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21375action=view)
testcase.
The difference is in the case with and without debug info. With the attached
pre-processed file
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-02 14:55 ---
Confirmed. My bootstrap with thumb2 and armv7-a failed as well. Here's the
configuration line . I only see a comparison failure with tree-vect-data-refs.o
in this configuration.
Configured with: /home/ramrad01
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-02 14:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=21370)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21370action=view)
Disassembly and object files that are different with the thumb2 bootstrap
Disassembly and object files
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 09:37 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 45067 ***
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 09:37 ---
*** Bug 45138 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 22:36 ---
Subject: Bug 43698
Author: ramana
Date: Fri Jul 30 22:35:40 2010
New Revision: 162725
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162725
Log:
Backport fix for PR target/43698.
2010-07-30 Ramana
--- Comment #18 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 22:38 ---
And hence fixed. Thanks for allowing the backport.
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45102
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-28 08:03 ---
I've been looking at this with respect to trunk bootstrapping on armv7a-linux
platforms.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg02102.html
See if the patches in that trail fix your bug.
--
ramana at gcc
--- Comment #7 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-28 09:01 ---
Thanks for the analysis, yes that appears to be the nub of the problem with the
result being removed . I see the same problem on trunk -
Patches should however be submitted to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org after
--- Comment #8 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-28 09:22 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Thanks for the analysis, yes that appears to be the nub of the problem with
the
result being removed . I see the same problem on trunk -
I just realized that this is a packed
--- Comment #5 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-27 12:32 ---
Patch posted here in response to the original thread. :
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg02076.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45067
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-27 12:47 ---
Patches should be submitted to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org after having been
regression tested. Please also submit a testcase and appropriate Changelog
entries as documented here - http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
--- Comment #8 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-27 13:37 ---
Fixed.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #24 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-26 08:05 ---
If this is fixed, the target milestone should be 4.6.0 and not 4.5.1 . I
thought this was a regression on the 4.5 branch and given that the branch is
now locked down for 4.5.1 the target milestone ought to be 4.5.2
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-26 08:55 ---
I see the same issue in my nightly armv7-a bootstrap.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 12:21 ---
Patch can be backported and tested. But since 4.5 is frozen right now, needs RM
permission.
Adding RM to CC.
cheers
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #13 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 08:31 ---
Subject: Bug 43698
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Jul 22 08:30:36 2010
New Revision: 162404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162404
Log:
Fix PR target/43698
2010-07-22 Ramana Radhakrishnan
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:37 ---
Hi,
Patches should be sent to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org rather than put in bugzilla
entries.
Even though the number of registers is theoretically 16 you are never going to
have num_saves = 16 . It's at the maximum
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 07:39 ---
Please submit a fully pre-processed source for someone to look at this as per
comment #2.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 09:35 ---
Confirmed - I think it should be fixed by this patch here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00495.html
Jie : do you think you could backport this to the 4.5 branch ?
cheers
Ramana
--
ramana
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 09:43 ---
Confirmed with Thumb1.
Just to be clear - command line options that cause the crash are :
./xgcc -B`pwd` -S -Os -mthumb -fno-omit-frame-pointer /tmp/t2ice.c
-march=armv5te
/tmp/t2ice.c: In function
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux
GCC target triplet: arm-eabi, arm-linux
--- Comment #7 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-09 16:19 ---
Should be fixed by this commit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-07/msg00301.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44768
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 08:43 ---
Can you reproduce this with GCC built using sources from http://gcc.gnu.org ?
If not please report such issues to the vendors of your toolchain. If you can
reproduce this with GCC built from FSF sources please let us
--- Comment #5 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 22:29 ---
The problem essentially is a miscompilation of diagnostic_action_after_output
in this case .
Attached is a testcase that demonstrates this problem with a cross compiler.
Configure just the compiler with arm-linux
--- Comment #6 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 22:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=21116)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21116action=view)
Actual testcase .
Attached testcase. Configure cross compiler with
--target=arm-eabi or --target=arm-linux
--- Comment #8 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-05 12:22 ---
Are you planning to backport this to all release branches since this affects
all of them ?
cheers
Ramana
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43703
--- Comment #22 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-05 13:43 ---
With trunk as of a couple of days back - the testcase when compiled with
-mcpu=cortex-a9 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp for EABI generates the following
code for C++ but not for C.
Notice the removal of the check
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 16:15 ---
I'm getting this failure in stage3 thus just attaching the expmed.i
pre-processed file isn't enough to reproduce this with a cross.
Doing a bisect I find that
rev: 160827 - builds expmed.o in stage3 .
rev: 160833
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-03 00:01 ---
I haven't verified the actual revision failing but I do see this failing as of
trunk today with an eabi compiler and all the options specified.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-03 00:03 ---
Can this patch be submitted to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org after due testing ?
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-03 00:10 ---
Waiting for feedback as per comments in Comment #1
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-03 00:21 ---
*** Bug 44603 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43961
--- Comment #5 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-03 00:21 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 43961 ***
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-22 00:51 ---
Khem,
Can you check if this fixes your problem ? Feel free to submit this to
gcc-patches@ if you get around to testing this before me.
Ramana
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.md b/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
index
--- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-26 08:50 ---
Yes - confirmed fixed with the reduced testcase.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: X86_64
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-21 10:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=20718)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20718action=view)
testcase
Testcase - Compile and assemble with -mcpu=cortex-a8 -mthumb -O3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 10:08 ---
Confirmed . I think this is a result of DSE not being able to remove this
because the prologue rtx pattern doesn't show the writes of the actual
registers.
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-11 07:37 ---
Is this still an issue ? My armv5te box was bootstrapping without the issue you
mention in cortex-a9.md and there is a test result from an armv5te-linux-eabi
variant here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-11 09:28 ---
How did you configure your tools in ? Have you considered using the --with-cpu
and --with-mode options while building your tools i.e. --with-cpu=cortex-m3
--with-mode=thumb.
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC target
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-10 16:03 ---
Confirmed - marking as a target bug .
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-30 00:31 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Here is the concerning part of the log.
In all-stageprofile-target-libgcc:
building _moddi3.o
...
../../../gcc-4.5.0/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__moddi3':
../../../gcc-4.5.0
--- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 09:55 ---
Confirmed though it isn't as simple as an expand time problem alone.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 10:06 ---
* I don't see why smulbb, smultb, smulbt, smultt shouldn't be generated for
their respective cases. So, yes that's correct.
* smulwy is not supported in the backend, so that's a feature enhancement
* smlawy
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 10:10 ---
On trunk I don't see the movne / moveq problem but the extra mov r3, #1 could
be removed. (I think one of Bernd's recent fixes to ifcvt.c fixed these
issues).
tst r1, #1
mov r3, #1
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 10:38 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Subject: Re: FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reduction3.f90
Does it work without -fopenmp?
Yes.
Dave
Does this still fail ? Recent testresults don't show this failure in libgomp.
Ramana
--- Comment #6 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 08:47 ---
Fixed now.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #24 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-19 09:06 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
Fixed for 4.6, if you confirm the patch for the branch tested ok I'll apply
that
there.
The patch works fine on the 4.5 branch with arm-linux-gnueabi.
A bootstrap with --with-cpu
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-17 15:32 ---
I think this should now be fixed by
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158378
Carrot , can you confirm you are happy with the code generated on trunk now ?
cheers
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #18 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 07:46 ---
Looking at more dumps this morning with the testcase and you can see that
in the not working case all the tmp variables aren't marked as being
call-clobbered.
Alias information for set_integer
Aliased symbols
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 09:13 ---
It should be safe for GCC to generate unaligned accesses for newer cores that
support this.
cheers
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 09:17 ---
Confirmed.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
--- Comment #8 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 09:39 ---
Could you submit the patch to gcc-patches@ ? If you need some help in testing
this patch let me know and I can do it for you.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #17 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 18:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=20389)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20389action=view)
Testcase for the problem.
Can this bug be reprioritized ?
Deep inside _gfortrani_set_integer, there's
--- Comment #7 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 08:38 ---
Patch submitted here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00401.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43698
--- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 09:17 ---
Could you post a cleaned-up testcase ? I tried a cleaned up testcase with the
values appropriately zero-initialized and gcc ends up generating the vectorized
value in this case.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 15:50 ---
A git bisect between the ranges suggested by Dave in Comment #6, gave me
r149470 this as the first broken commit using a cross-compiler to
arm-linux-gnueabi with qemu as the simulator .
2009-07-02 Richard Guenther
--- Comment #15 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-12 17:21 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
A git bisect between the ranges suggested by Dave in Comment #6, gave me
r149470 this as the first broken commit using a cross-compiler to
arm-linux-gnueabi with qemu as the simulator
--- Comment #11 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-10 08:45 ---
I can pretty much see this on a v7 arm-linux-gnueabi target with 157994 (i.e.
using a libgfortran from my 4.5 tree, causes this test to fail and using the
system libgfortran things just work).
On this target
--- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 07:02 ---
I can see the same failure on 4.5 branch with the testcase. The flags I used on
the command line were -mcpu=cortex-a8 -Os .
cheers
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 07:38 ---
It appears as though there's a latent bug in arm_ccfsm_state_machine. If you
mark this correctly as being predicable which the rev insn is - the bug goes
away.
If arm_final_prescan_insn sees something
--- Comment #5 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 07:48 ---
Actually strike out the last patch - that's just wrong for Thumb1. This is what
I am testing currently.
Index: arm.md
===
--- arm.md (revision
--- Comment #1 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-08 22:13 ---
Hmm - so why is it that we add an initialization for reg:XI 136 with a
const_int 0 in .175r.init_regs
adding initialization in test of reg 136 at in block 3 for insn 12.
(insn 91 11 12 3 /tmp/n.c:13 (set (reg:XI
1 - 100 of 531 matches
Mail list logo
