--- Comment #12 from echristo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-16 09:01
---
Subject: Bug 29030
Author: echristo
Date: Sat Sep 16 09:01:16 2006
New Revision: 116994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116994
Log:
2006-09-16 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-16 22:47
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-15
01:32 ---
Andrew,
To answer my own question, the following is from tonight's gcc make check
using the original
version of your patch which only impacted the
rs6000_darwin64_record_arg_advance_recurse...
--- Comment #10 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-15
02:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=12274)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12274action=view)
Patch to fix PR29030
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29030
--- Comment #11 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-15
05:33 ---
Andrew,
The PR29030.txt patch I posted eliminates the array-9 testsuite failures at
-m64...
Native configuration is powerpc-apple-darwin8
=== gcc tests ===
Schedule of variations:
--- Comment #5 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-13
12:20 ---
Andrew,
The proposed patch doesn't work. It converts the internal
compiler error into a compiler time error of...
gcc-4 -O3 -g -m64 array-9.c
array-9.c:7: error: declaration of 'x' as array of voids
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 16:22 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Andrew,
The proposed patch doesn't work. It converts the internal
compiler error into a compiler time error of...
Yes the patch does work as this is invalid code to begin with :).
--- Comment #7 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-13
18:41 ---
Okay. I'll run a complete make check tonight to verify
that the patch introduces no regressions in at least
the c, c++ and fortran language build. Assuming no
regressions, do you want to submit the patch
--- Comment #8 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-14
02:18 ---
Andrew,
I just noticed that the same code fragment exists in
rs6000_darwin64_record_arg_recurse
as well as in rs6000_darwin64_record_arg_advance_recurse. Shouldn't we then
make the patch...
Index:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-12 04:16 ---
This is a target specific issue, I might fix this even though I don't have any
way of testing the fix (except maybe for changing the ABI on powerpc-linux-gnu
to use the darwin64 struct passing ABI).
--
pinskia
--- Comment #3 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-12
04:20 ---
Andrew,
I'd be happy to test any attempts to fix this.
Jack
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29030
--- Comment #2 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2006-09-12
04:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=12230)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12230action=view)
preprocessed file for array-9.s generated with -O3 -m64 on Darwin PPC
--
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-12 05:57 ---
Simple untested (even on the testcase) fix:
Index: rs6000.c
===
--- rs6000.c(revision 116799)
+++ rs6000.c(working copy)
@@ -4607,7 +4607,10 @@
13 matches
Mail list logo
