https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Feb 23 21:46:18 2015
New Revision: 220920
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220920root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65109
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch has been posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg01324.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34821
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34821action=edit
Patch to make the test less subject to register clobbering.
FWIW, I agree with Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Martin,
Looks good to me. Can you write a quick ChangeLog for the patch, then post it
to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
Something like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Martin,
Looks good to me. Can you write a quick ChangeLog for the patch, then post it
to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
Something like
PR target/65109
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #6)
Does the test pass if the schedulers are turned off?
No. That was the first thing I tried when investigating it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Yea, I should have realized you'd try that.
The other thought that comes to mind is __builtin_saveregs, but that doesn't
seem to be implemented on PPC, and even if it was implemented
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The test failure can be avoided by using -fstore-float.
The failure is caused by comparing f4 and f9 after f9 has been read from a
stack location that hasn't been written to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor msebor at gmail dot com ---
There's the following comment in the test:
/* Testcase could break on future gcc's, if parameter regs
are changed before this asm. */
Moving the locals out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor msebor at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 34809
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34809action=edit
Test patch to let it pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hpenner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
16 matches
Mail list logo
