https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looking at some stage2 and stage3 obj files that Matthias sent me, there are
actual code differences between the stage2 and stage3 compiles. The following
code shows one example.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #11)
Vlad, can you think of any way that your change might affect this? It seems
suspicious that your patch forces some pseudos to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #13 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri May 23 01:17:41 2014
New Revision: 210835
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210835root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/61231
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #14 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri May 23 01:24:08 2014
New Revision: 210836
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210836root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/61231
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #15 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri May 23 01:28:23 2014
New Revision: 210837
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210837root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/61231
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #9)
So, what's happening here on the testcase is that before r210519, from the
ira dump for pseudo reg 171 we have
a15 (r171,l0) best
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
is test/compile sufficient, or do you have to run it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #4 from Frank Ch. Eigler fche at redhat dot com ---
is test/compile sufficient, or do you have to run it?
Just compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32828
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32828action=edit
Test case that errors out with invalid assembly on big-endian
[bergner@makalu-lp1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I meant to add that the issue I'm seeing on BE is due to the same patch that
Matthias is having a problem with, namely 210520 (trunk) 210519 (4.9).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
on powerpc64le, the test passes with both the stage2 and stage3 compilers of
the problematic build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
so this happens because I had sys/sdt.h installed during the build, and
automatically gets picked up during the build.
So probably an invalid issue, or should the inclusion of this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61231
Frank Ch. Eigler fche at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fche at redhat
18 matches
Mail list logo
