--- Comment #11 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-23 17:56 ---
Closing. This found an issue in the RTEMS ta 3 trap handler. Resolved on the
RTEMS side.
--
joel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-18 14:27 ---
OK. I decided to look at this in more detail in the simulator. The failing
instruction is:
2001358: d0 07 bf fc ld [ %fp + -4 ], %o0
and when I run with a breakpoint there, a dump of the registers shows
--- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-18 16:56
---
OK. I decided to look at this in more detail in the simulator. The failing
instruction is:
2001358: d0 07 bf fc ld [ %fp + -4 ], %o0
and when I run with a breakpoint there, a dump of the
--- Comment #8 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-18 17:12 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
OK. I decided to look at this in more detail in the simulator. The failing
instruction is:
2001358: d0 07 bf fc ld [ %fp + -4 ], %o0
and when I run with a breakpoint
--- Comment #9 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-18 18:18 ---
Jiri Gaisler confirms there is no ta 3 handler in RTEMS currently. He will
be adding it to RTEMS.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35180
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-18 18:54
---
Subject: Bug 35180
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Mar 18 18:54:31 2009
New Revision: 144942
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144942
Log:
PR target/35180
* config/sparc/sparc.md
--- Comment #2 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-17 14:02 ---
Yes.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-03/msg00362.html.
We also cross post them to an RTEMS tool list and apparently the run on 12
March
resulted in a log that was too large for gcc-testresults.
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-17 17:13 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Is there anything I can do to help with this?
If you could bisect the behaviour to a svn revision range, that might give a
clue.
See the description of the aforementioned bug (where it's
--- Comment #4 from joel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-17 17:32 ---
Going back through the old run logs. Is this how it shows up?
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/built-in-setjmp.c execution, -O0
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/built-in-setjmp.c execution, -O1
FAIL:
--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-17 04:18 ---
Does this still happen? See also PR38609.
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
10 matches
Mail list logo
