https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Just to confirm. Yes, that patch fixed the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Robin Dapp :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2240ebd8e46e098f972a662d0aad85348b304889
commit r12-7420-g2240ebd8e46e098f972a662d0aad85348b304889
Author: Robin Dapp
Date: Mon Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
Claudiu Zissulescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||claziss at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So the updated patch fixes the arc build regressions. I haven't looked at the
thread with Segher, but I will as soon as I can. Mostly just wanted to let
you know that the updated patch does indeed get th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #7 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
This
diff --git a/gcc/config/arc/arc.cc b/gcc/config/arc/arc.cc
index 8cc173519ab..e9ea90631a2 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arc/arc.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/arc/arc.cc
@@ -2254,6 +2254,8 @@ gen_compare_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Created attachment 52432
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52432&action=edit
Testcase #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Given we've run this code on a pretty wide variety of targets, I'm not too
concerned. The arc issue was the last one I'm aware of related to your ifcvt
changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #3 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
Power(10) also saw a similar problem where the backend was not prepared to
handle what we are passing now. I'm starting to become a bit concerned now
that more backends might (latently) not be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #2 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
Yes, your guess was right again. We ICE here:
gcc_assert (cmode == SImode || cmode == SFmode || cmode == DFmode);
but cmode == E_CCmode with the patch.
This already helps and the resulting seq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
--- Comment #1 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
Strange, I didn't receive a mail/notification for this PR all, otherwise I
would have looked into it earlier. This has been happening a few times lately,
grml. Looking into it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104154
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
14 matches
Mail list logo
