[Bug testsuite/44701] [4.6 regression] PR44492 fix broke gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c

2010-07-27 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-27 17:58 --- Should be fixed now. -- jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Statu

[Bug testsuite/44701] [4.6 regression] PR44492 fix broke gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c

2010-07-27 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-27 17:53 --- Subject: Bug 44701 Author: jakub Date: Tue Jul 27 17:52:35 2010 New Revision: 162581 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162581 Log: PR testsuite/44701 * doc/md.texi: Clarify m and e

[Bug testsuite/44701] [4.6 regression] PR44492 fix broke gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c

2010-07-23 Thread mikpe at it dot uu dot se
--- Comment #8 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-07-23 12:22 --- (In reply to comment #7) > Fixed? No, the test case itself needs a fix too. Jakub posted it to gcc-patches, but it was never approved AFAIK and is still not applied. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4

[Bug testsuite/44701] [4.6 regression] PR44492 fix broke gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c

2010-07-23 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 12:06 --- Fixed? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44701

[Bug testsuite/44701] [4.6 regression] PR44492 fix broke gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c

2010-07-13 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 14:04 --- Subject: Bug 44701 Author: jakub Date: Tue Jul 13 14:03:49 2010 New Revision: 162142 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162142 Log: PR testsuite/44701 * recog.c (constrain_operands)

[Bug testsuite/44701] [4.6 regression] PR44492 fix broke gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c

2010-07-12 Thread pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 21:05 --- Sorry, recog.c is where the prior code snippet came from. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44701

[Bug testsuite/44701] [4.6 regression] PR44492 fix broke gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c

2010-07-12 Thread pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 21:03 --- Adding '<>' to the "=m" constraint fixes the testcase, but adding a single '>' (or '<') results in an error for impossible constraints. This is caused by the following snippet that was added to reload1.c:

[Bug testsuite/44701] [4.6 regression] PR44492 fix broke gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c

2010-07-06 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-06 21:46 --- Confirmed. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCON

[Bug testsuite/44701] [4.6 regression] PR44492 fix broke gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c

2010-06-29 Thread mikpe at it dot uu dot se
--- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-06-29 11:00 --- (In reply to comment #1) > - asm ("asm2%U0 %0" : "=m" (*p)); > + asm ("asm2%U0 %0" : "=m<>" (*p)); That fixed the test case. Thanks. I didn't know about the PowerPC-specific %U thing, but now I see that the c

[Bug testsuite/44701] [4.6 regression] PR44492 fix broke gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c

2010-06-29 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 09:49 --- Guess something like: --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c 2009-07-20 20:41:46.0 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c 2010-06-29 11:37:05.482959217 +0200 @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ f2 (int *