--- Comment #16 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-01 22:43
---
Hmm, actually the only bit of that pass that runs is a cleanup_cfg with
cross-jumping.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42509
--- Comment #15 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-01 22:04
---
In expr.i.194r.dse2 the DImode load insn contains
(insn 4435 4434 5070 176 /home/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/trunk/libcpp/expr.c:1281
(set (reg:DI 0 r0)
(mem/c:DI (reg:SI 1 r1) [87 %sfp+-544 S8 A64])) 587 {*thumb2
--- Comment #14 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-01 19:30
---
It appears that some of the annotations on the DImode reload are incorrect.
The store insn contains
(mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 13 sp)
(const_int 276 [0x114])) [87 %sfp+-540 S4 A64])
and the load contai
--- Comment #13 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-01 17:11 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I see this on arm-eabi cross with gcc version 4.5.0 20100401 (experimental)
> [trunk revision 157899] (GCC)
>
> With the following command line options -
>
> ./xgcc -B`pwd` -S -O2 -mthu
--- Comment #12 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-01 15:55 ---
I see this on arm-eabi cross with gcc version 4.5.0 20100401 (experimental)
[trunk revision 157899] (GCC)
With the following command line options -
./xgcc -B`pwd` -S -O2 -mthumb -mcpu=cortex-a9 -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 ~/e
--- Comment #11 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-01 15:32
---
Created an attachment (id=20278)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20278&action=view)
compressed source for bug
Compiled with
/home/rearnsha/gnu/gcc/trunkd16/./stage1-gcc/xgcc
-B/home/rearnsha/g
--- Comment #10 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-01 15:11
---
Insn sequence from postreload dump (order is correct):
(insn 4979 1883 4589 173 /home/rearnsha/gnusrc/gcc/trunk/libcpp/expr.c:1281
(set (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 13 sp)
(const_int 276 [0x114]))
--- Comment #9 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-01 15:02
---
This is a miscompilation during stage2. The file libcpp/expr.c is miscompiled.
The problem is occurring in num_positive, which ends up generating a shift of a
long long right by 63. The code generated is creatin
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-16 13:55 ---
Downgrading to P2 based on Josephs comments.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-16 08:57 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> As Matthias said this is a --with-mode=thumb issue, people not using this
> option have no issue bootstraping natively on arm:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-03/msg01254.htm
--- Comment #6 from laurent at guerby dot net 2010-03-15 17:36 ---
As Matthias said this is a --with-mode=thumb issue, people not using this
option have no issue bootstraping natively on arm:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-03/msg01254.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresul
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-15 13:23 ---
Ping.
Is native bootstrap not important for arm? If so please downgrade to P2.
Thanks.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2010-01-07
13:53 ---
a build with BOOT_CFLAGS set to -g -O1 succeeds
Matthias
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42509
--- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-06 12:26 ---
[I don't see the first build breakage with libiberty but the second problem
with "integer overflow in expressions"] . I am trying a full checking build on
a board but that's taking some time to complete !
With some m
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-31 15:21 ---
Primary target fails to bootstrap.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
15 matches
Mail list logo
