http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-09-28
20:33:00 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Fri Sep 28 20:32:55 2012
New Revision: 191838
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191838
Log:
PR bootstrap/54688
* sched-de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou 2012-09-28
07:55:19 UTC ---
> The offset range should not be an issue with the right constraints etc.; the
> port really ought to be changed.
Yes, in fact we already have the machinery to do it.
> In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-27 15:59:38 UTC ---
> --- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-09-27
> 13:28:12 UTC ---
> Hmm, strange. What if you just make a change like this:
>
> @@ -4600,8 +4600,7 @@ pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-09-27
13:28:12 UTC ---
Hmm, strange. What if you just make a change like this:
@@ -4600,8 +4600,7 @@ parse_add_or_inc (struct mem_inc_info *m
if (!REG_P (SET_DEST (pat)))
return false;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-27 07:57:04 UTC ---
> --- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-09-26
> 14:13:31 UTC ---
> Created attachment 28283
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28283
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-09-26
14:13:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 28283
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28283
Candidate patch.
The offset range should not be an issue with the right constraints etc.; t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2012-09-26
14:03:24 UTC ---
> Oh, I missed that it was a MINUS rtx. This is noncanonical RTL, it should be
> (plus (sp) (negated constant)).
>
> Does the bug persist if you fix the sparc port in this way
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-09-26
13:50:06 UTC ---
Oh, I missed that it was a MINUS rtx. This is noncanonical RTL, it should be
(plus (sp) (negated constant)).
Does the bug persist if you fix the sparc port in this way?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2012-09-26
13:37:25 UTC ---
> I admit I don't quite see yet why this would be invalid (assuming that the
> stack grows from high address to low ones). What do you mean by "the frame is
> destroyed", is the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-09-26
13:18:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> It's r191493, the transformation is applied to a %sp-based load, which is
> invalid since the frame is destroyed, and the resulting offset is bogus:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc64-linux |sparc64-linux,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
15 matches
Mail list logo
