--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-05
20:29 ---
Subject: Bug 18910
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-05 20:29:06
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/i386:
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-05 20:31
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-02
16:04 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00034.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-01-01 22:16 ---
I believe that the regression is caused by
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-11/msg01166.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-01-01 22:21 ---
This is the original thread which leads to this regession:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-11/threads.html#00839
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18910
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-01
22:33 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
This is the original thread which leads to this regession:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-11/threads.html#00839
If you notice this works on all other targets other than
--- Additional Comments From jh at suse dot cz 2005-01-01 23:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] unrecognisable insn in regclass on x86/amd64
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-01
22:33 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
This is the
--- Additional Comments From jh at suse dot cz 2005-01-02 00:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] unrecognisable insn in regclass on x86/amd64
--- Additional Comments From jh at suse dot cz 2005-01-01 23:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] unrecognisable insn in regclass
--- Additional Comments From gschafer at zip dot com dot au 2005-01-01
01:18 ---
I've just hit this while trying to build Glibc with current GCC trunk. It's a
showstopper.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-01 06:36
---
Raise priority since this hits glibc.
--
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2
--- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-17 08:01
---
*** Bug 19029 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2004-12-15 20:08 ---
Something is very strange:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] thread]$ cat do.c
extern __thread void *foo [];
void
test1 (void)
{
int s;
for (s = 0; s 2; ++s)
{
foo [s] = foo[s];
}
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] thread]$
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-14
23:35 ---
*** Bug 19000 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-13
08:33 ---
If it's a target bug, let's pester Honza with it :-)
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-12
21:24 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #9)
The fail dates from comment #3 probably refer to this change
What this tells me it is a latent bug in x86/x86_64 back-end as my change
should not
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-10
14:14 ---
Note the date for C++ is different:
: Search converges between 2004-08-30-trunk (#529) and 2004-08-31-trunk (#530).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18910
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-10
14:18 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
The fail dates from comment #3 probably refer to this change
2004-10-17 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-10
11:52 ---
The fail dates from comment #3 probably refer to this change
2004-10-17 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-10
11:18 ---
Backtrace from amd64 (Prescott) at -O0
#0 fancy_abort (file=0x95711e ../../mainline/gcc/recog.c, line=2020,
function=0x957139 extract_insn) at diagnostic.c:556
#1 0x00766d08 in _fatal_insn
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-10
11:35 ---
Not the same but maybe related:
1 static __thread void *foo [2];
2
3 test1 ()
4 {
5 void **D, **ivtmp12;
6
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-10
11:44 ---
Minimal test case:
$ cat t.c
static __thread void *foo[2];
test1 ()
{
void **ivtmp12;
while (foo[1] != ivtmp12);
}
$ ../cc1 t.c -fdump-rtl-expand-details
test1
t.c: In function 'test1':
t.c:6: error:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-10
11:47 ---
Without __thread, insn 9 is almost identical except for the flags (this is
with -m32 fwiw):
;; D.1123 = foo[1]
(insn 9 7 0 (set (reg:SI 58 [ D.1123 ])
-(const:SI (plus:SI (symbol_ref:SI (foo)
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-10
12:04 ---
GCC 3.3.5 (SUSE 9.2) produces this RTL for the ICEing statement:
(insn 11 10 12 (nil) (set (reg:DI 61)
(symbol_ref:DI (foo))) -1 (nil)
(nil))
23 matches
Mail list logo
