http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30156
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30156action=edit
patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #3 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Under test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
hmmm...
now I'm getting a different ICE:
internal compiler error: in arm_dbx_register_number, at config/arm/arm.c:25834
a gcc_unreachable () is reached.
If I print out the regno argument to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #5 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If I print out the regno argument to arm_dbx_register_number, it's 272 which
seem to me like it could be reg number in DWARF numbering?
yes it is. strange, I can't see this new failure, with a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #5)
If I print out the regno argument to arm_dbx_register_number, it's 272 which
seem to me like it could be reg number in DWARF numbering?
yes it is.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #7 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
(In reply to chrbr from comment #5)
If I print out the regno argument to arm_dbx_register_number, it's 272
which
seem to me like it could be reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #7)
thanks for catching it.
No problem, thanks for fixing :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #9 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
no, in fact, you confused me. The patch was committed correctly :-)
On a side note, in your patch you say:
- t = one_reg_loc_descriptor (REGNO (XVECEXP (regs, 0, i)),
+ reg = REGNO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #9)
no, in fact, you confused me. The patch was committed correctly :-)
On a side note, in your patch you say:
- t = one_reg_loc_descriptor (REGNO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In any case, if you have
Err... stray line. Ignor that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #12 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comment on attachment 30156
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30156
patch
Index: arm.c
===
--- arm.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #13 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comment on attachment 30156
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30156
patch
ndex: arm.c
===
--- arm.c(revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #14 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In that post (comment 6) I was citing the patch you attached to this report,
which says:
OK that's clear. Wrong attachment
like you said. Presumably that attached part should have been
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57351
--- Comment #15 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #14)
In that post (comment 6) I was citing the patch you attached to this report,
which says:
OK that's clear. Wrong attachment
like you said.
16 matches
Mail list logo
