--- Comment #23 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-15 15:08 ---
Please s/incomoing/incoming/g in the patch. Otherwise the patch makes a lot of
sense to me. As INCOMING_STACK_BOUNDARY is used not only in
expand_stack_alignment, but also in 386's targetm.function_ok_for_sibcall
--- Comment #24 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-15 15:18
---
Created an attachment (id=17107)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17107action=view)
Here is the updated patch.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #25 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-15 15:23
---
(In reply to comment #24)
Created an attachment (id=17107)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17107action=view) [edit]
Here is the updated patch.
OK.
Diego.
--
--- Comment #26 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-15 15:44 ---
Subject: Bug 37843
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jan 15 15:44:41 2009
New Revision: 143400
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143400
Log:
gcc/
2009-01-15 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
Joey Ye
--- Comment #27 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-15 16:28 ---
Fixed, thanks.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-09 19:34
---
HJ --
As Richard says, you should not have checked in the new testcases without
XFAILs and without having fixed the bug.
Furthermore, your patch to the middle-end is without explanation. What is the
problem?
--- Comment #21 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-12-09 22:34
---
Created an attachment (id=16868)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16868action=view)
An updated patch
This patch adds some comments to middle-end change. It also
replaces _Decimal128 with __m128
--- Comment #22 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-12-09 22:36
---
(In reply to comment #20)
HJ --
As Richard says, you should not have checked in the new testcases without
XFAILs and without having fixed the bug.
Furthermore, your patch to the middle-end is without
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-11-30 11:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] unaligned stack in main
due to tail call optimization
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com wrote:
--- Comment #18 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-29
--- Comment #16 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-29 16:33 ---
Subject: Bug 37843
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Nov 29 16:32:35 2008
New Revision: 142278
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142278
Log:
2008-11-29 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR middle-end/37843
--- Comment #17 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-29 21:04 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #18 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-29 21:10
---
It isn't totally fixed:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37843-3.c scan-assembler-not call[t ]*foo
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37843-3.c scan-assembler jmp[t ]*foo
I only checked in x86 backend change since no one
--- Comment #15 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-28 16:32 ---
Subject: Bug 37843
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Nov 28 16:30:56 2008
New Revision: 142259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142259
Log:
2008-11-28 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR middle-end/37843
--- Comment #14 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-26 14:53 ---
Subject: Bug 37843
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 26 14:52:12 2008
New Revision: 14
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=14
Log:
2008-11-26 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR middle-end/37843
--- Comment #13 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2008-11-26
12:23 ---
Why do we have...
/* { dg-do compile { target { *-*-linux* ilp32 } } } */
in gcc.target/i386/align-main-3.c and gcc.target/i386/pr37843-3.c
but not gcc.target/i386/pr37843-1.c and
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-25 15:34 ---
Subject: Bug 37843
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Nov 25 15:33:27 2008
New Revision: 142193
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142193
Log:
gcc/
2008-11-25 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joey Ye
--- Comment #9 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2008-11-26
04:25 ---
On i686-apple-darwin9, we are failing...
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37843-1.c scan-assembler call[\\t ]*foo
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37843-2.c scan-assembler jmp[\\t ]*foo
at revision 142207.
--
--- Comment #10 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2008-11-26
04:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=16773)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16773action=view)
assembly file for gcc.target/i386/pr37843-1.c on i686-apple-darwin9
Created with...
--- Comment #11 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2008-11-26
04:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=16774)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16774action=view)
assembly file for gcc.target/i386/pr37843-2.c on i686-apple-darwin9
Created with...
--- Comment #12 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-26 05:38
---
I don't think sibcall work on Darwin. Can you skip them on Darwin?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37843
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 21:34 ---
P1 bug with a pending patch... maybe a reviewer could take a look at this
(seemingly trivial) patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00180.html
?
--
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-11 06:49 ---
The current patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00180.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-05 14:32 ---
The updated patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00130.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-01 11:36 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-01 00:25 ---
I changed it to middle-end.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
25 matches
Mail list logo
