--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-22 15:17 ---
Happens on mainline as well.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-31 07:43 ---
Subject: Bug 24367
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Aug 31 07:43:36 2006
New Revision: 116599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116599
Log:
2006-08-31 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-31 07:50 ---
Subject: Bug 24367
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Aug 31 07:50:19 2006
New Revision: 116600
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116600
Log:
2006-08-31 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #8 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-31 08:06 ---
Although the bug is latent in gcc 4.0 as well I've applied the patch to 4.1 and
4.2 only. I could not reproduce a failure with gcc 4.0 so I've left it as is
rather than risking new problems.
--
krebbel at gcc
--- Comment #30 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-21 13:56
---
All three (c974001, c974013 and cb20001) do not fail on s390x anymore since my
patch removing the CLOBBERs for eh registers has been applied:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00498.html
--- Comment #33 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-21 14:49
---
Ok. I wasn't aware of this. On s390 these testcases failed even without the
struct-aliasing patch. So obviously it was just a coincidence that the same
testcases failed on s390 (plus one more).
Sorry if I made
--- Comment #8 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-03 07:44 ---
Subject: Bug 25864
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Feb 3 07:44:12 2006
New Revision: 110538
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=110538
Log:
2006-02-03 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #9 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-03 07:53 ---
Subject: Bug 25864
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Feb 3 07:52:57 2006
New Revision: 110539
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=110539
Log:
2006-02-03 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED
: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: bonzini at gnu dot org
ReportedBy: krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: s390x-ibm-linux-gnu
--- Comment #2 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-18 16:59 ---
Thanks for your comprehensive debugging!
At first glance I would say reload should take a word_mode register and reload
the constant. The code added by your patch to legitimate_address_p says that a
single number
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-09 11:41 ---
On s390 we use a trick to make the literal pool base register
available on demand. It is defined as eliminable register
which can be eliminated to itself with offset 0. When a reload round
finds a r13 (literal pool
--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 09:24 ---
Subject: Bug 27959
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Jun 14 09:24:44 2006
New Revision: 114636
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114636
Log:
2006-06-14 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 14:20 ---
Subject: Bug 27959
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Jun 14 14:19:54 2006
New Revision: 114640
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114640
Log:
2006-06-14 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 14:22 ---
Patch committed to mainline and gcc 4.1 branch.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #29 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-23 15:16
---
On s390x c974001, c974013 and cb20001 run into a infinite loop with current
mainline. At least the first two look related - not sure about the third.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #5 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-15 16:47 ---
The only difference my patch brought is different behaviour
of mark_set_1 if it is called under wrong! conditions. Will
say that only in case somebody calls mark_set_1 clobbering a reg which
is live afterwards - we
in fold-const.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: krebbel
--- Comment #1 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=10246)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10246action=view)
testcase part 1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24887
--- Comment #2 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=10247)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10247action=view)
testcase part 2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24887
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=10248)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10248action=view)
testcase part 3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24887
--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 09:46 ---
My posting was a bit corrupted - sorry.
fold_convert.f90:13: internal compiler error: in fold_convert, at fold.c:2028
fold.f90:13: internal compiler error: in fold_convert, at fold-const.c:2028
Please submit
--- Comment #11 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:29
---
Ok, knowing that this may only happen if the return value
of a function has a complex type a trivial fix could look
like this:
Index: gcc/flow.c
--- Comment #13 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 16:07
---
I don't have an Intel 64bit machine, but I can do a bootstrap on a x86_64
machine with this patch.
Ups. That's what I was trying to suggest - an unusual typo isn't it? ;-)
Thanks for taking care
--- Comment #16 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 17:36
---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
The testcase to get that construct is:
Compiling with -mpowerpc64 to get the mixed mode. I would not doubt that the
arm failure is a similar issue
--- Comment #6 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-28 15:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=10354)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10354action=view)
Testcase which failes on S/390 64bit with -O2
This testcase is reduced from gengtype-lex.c. Due to this bug
--- Comment #18 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-05 07:57
---
(In reply to comment #17)
Oh, and another case where we can get the parallel is for returning 128bit
structs on x86_64.
I've posted a patch on Nov 28th which should handle these cases correctly:
http
--- Comment #1 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-06 14:33 ---
Shorter testcase:
long long
foo (long long x, int y)
{
return x ((y + 1) 63);
}
The count operand of a shift instruction is a somewhat weird
thing on S/390. It is basically an address accepting the sum
--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 11:26 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
BTW, is the s390 hw really masking the shift count with 63 for all insns,
or just the DImode shifts and with 31 for SImode shifts?
On S/390 all shift count operands are masked with 63
--- Comment #7 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 16:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=10435)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10435action=view)
Patch without testcase
I've bootstrapped the attached patch on s390 and s390x without
testsuite regressions
--- Comment #9 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 17:33 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Ok (not sure if it really is a good idea to make the *_operand names that
long),
Mmmh you are right but I couldn't think of a better name that moment.
just I'm afraid ashrdi3_cc_64_and
--- Comment #10 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:32
---
Subject: Bug 25268
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Dec 8 08:32:34 2005
New Revision: 108216
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108216
Log:
2005-12-08 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #11 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:33
---
Subject: Bug 25268
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Dec 8 08:33:39 2005
New Revision: 108217
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108217
Log:
2005-12-08 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #12 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 08:56
---
Subject: Bug 25268
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Dec 8 08:56:24 2005
New Revision: 108220
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108220
Log:
2005-12-08 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #21 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-16 09:02
---
Subject: Bug 24823
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Dec 16 09:02:49 2005
New Revision: 108631
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108631
Log:
2005-12-16 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #22 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-16 09:09
---
Subject: Bug 24823
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Dec 16 09:09:37 2005
New Revision: 108632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108632
Log:
2005-12-16 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #23 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-16 09:18
---
Fixed.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 18:26 ---
As far as I know the kernel guys rely on the fact that gcc can
handle DImode operations without calling libgcc. As Richard pointed out
this only fails in this case because the conditional jump is emitted
--- Comment #9 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-09 12:18 ---
Ups sorry. I've fixed that now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24624
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-09 12:24 ---
Patch committed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-11/msg00387.html
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-27 16:20 ---
Subject: Bug 29319
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Nov 27 16:20:24 2006
New Revision: 119254
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119254
Log:
2006-11-27 Michael Matz [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #6 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-27 16:27 ---
Subject: Bug 29319
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Nov 27 16:26:53 2006
New Revision: 119255
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119255
Log:
2006-11-27 Michael Matz [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #7 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-27 16:34 ---
Subject: Bug 29319
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Nov 27 16:34:19 2006
New Revision: 119256
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119256
Log:
2006-11-27 Michael Matz [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #7 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-13 13:26 ---
ICE can be observed on s390 and s390x as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg00357.html
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-16 12:38 ---
The same happens on s390 and s390x. The constant Default_Bit_Order is definded
in system.ads:
-- Other System-Dependent Declarations
type Bit_Order is (High_Order_First, Low_Order_First
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-17 16:59 ---
Subject: Bug 31576
Author: krebbel
Date: Tue Apr 17 16:59:24 2007
New Revision: 123915
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=123915
Log:
2007-04-17 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR ada
--- Comment #2 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 12:21 ---
In your example the memset function is called with -1 as length argument. When
GCC tries to expand this as a builtin function an assertion in the s390 back
end function s390_expand_setmem is triggered. Although
--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-24 13:08 ---
Subject: Bug 31641
Author: krebbel
Date: Tue Apr 24 13:08:05 2007
New Revision: 124099
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124099
Log:
2007-04-24 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-24 13:15 ---
Subject: Bug 31641
Author: krebbel
Date: Tue Apr 24 13:15:11 2007
New Revision: 124100
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124100
Log:
2007-04-24 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-24 13:21 ---
Subject: Bug 31641
Author: krebbel
Date: Tue Apr 24 13:21:22 2007
New Revision: 124101
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=124101
Log:
2007-04-24 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-24 13:23 ---
Ulrich approved the patch for 4.1/4.2/4.3.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-22 09:16 ---
Fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrevision=124938
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-26 17:33
---
Subject: Bug 34081
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Nov 26 17:33:23 2007
New Revision: 130441
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=130441
Log:
2007-11-26 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-07 17:28 ---
The (const_int 3148725999 [0xbbadbeef]) is accepted by legitimate_constant_p
since it is expected to end up in the literal pool. But in this case the
constant becomes part of a REG_EQUIV note of an insn moving
--- Comment #6 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-10 16:47 ---
Subject: Bug 34641
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Jan 10 16:46:26 2008
New Revision: 131445
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=131445
Log:
2008-01-10 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #8 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-11 09:03 ---
Fixed with:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-01/msg00460.html
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 12:59 ---
The assembler code is broken. In case of an overlap mvc copies one byte at a
time and continuing with the next after the first has been written. That's how
we use mvc for memsets.
The mvcs are merged by the dead
--- Comment #2 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 10:21 ---
The FUNCTION_VALUE back end hook gets invoked with an error mark node - weird.
That shouldn't happen I think.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-19 12:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=14580)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14580action=view)
Smaller testcase
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-19 13:32 ---
The problem occurs since this patch has removed the promotion of result types
of a function decl:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg00424.html
With this patch the enum Status return type of getStatus
--- Comment #7 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-19 13:42 ---
Breakpoint 1, s390_function_value (type=0x2326bb8, mode=VOIDmode) at
/build2/gcc-4.3/gcc/config/s390/s390.c:7874
warning: Source file is more recent than executable.
7874 if (type)
(gdb) bt
#0
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 17:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=18047)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18047action=view)
Initial Patch - not bootstrapped yet
I currently don't understand why this didn't occur earlier. Did become
--- Comment #6 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 07:01 ---
Subject: Bug 40501
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Jun 24 07:01:24 2009
New Revision: 148892
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148892
Log:
2009-06-24 Andreas Krebbel krebb...@de.ibm.com
PR
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i386-gnu-linux, s390x-ibm-linux
GCC host triplet: i386-gnu-linux, s390x-ibm-linux
GCC target triplet: i386-gnu-linux, s390x-ibm-linux
http
--- Comment #39 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-31 10:31
---
Ok. That looks good. I think the S/390 problem from comment #33 got fixed with
that patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg01392.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40597
of genattrtab
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37674
--- Comment #1 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-30 15:30 ---
The failure can currently be seen bootstrapping ira-merge branch (rev.:
140776).
configure --enable-shared --with-system-zlib --enable-threads=posix
--enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-checking --enable-decimal-float
--- Comment #2 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-06 14:07 ---
Just to check whether the propagation of the conflicting hard regs in
ira_flatting really is the main problem I've tried the following patch. With
that patch the ira branch bootstraps on s390x.
Index: gcc/ira
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-10 16:56 ---
Vladimir could you please have a look. Mainline is still not bootstrapping on
S/390 due to this problem.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-17 13:16 ---
Same on s390x:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg00740.html
Please note that the patch attached to the email most likely isn't a correct
solution.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #9 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-20 12:07 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Does s390x-linux bootstrap now (possibly with PR37815 fix as well)? Can this
be closed?
This particular problem seems to be fixed for s390x. GCC still doesn't
bootstrap - even
--- Comment #10 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-20 12:08
---
My testcase works fine with current GCC mainline.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: s390x-ibm-linux
GCC host triplet: s390x-ibm-linux
GCC target triplet: s390x-ibm-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37884
--- Comment #1 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-22 12:51 ---
The problem again (similar to PR37674) seems to be related to the
propagation of the hard reg conflict sets in ira_flattening. The
conflict sets are only propagated to the parent allocno if the child
allocno uses
--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-27 09:19 ---
Thanks for the fix. The ira-merge branch now bootstraps on s390 and s390x:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-10/msg01894.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-10/msg01879.html
--
http
stays 64 bit with -m31
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build
--- Comment #2 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-31 09:11 ---
Ok. I'm bootstrapping a patch which mimics what has been done for Power.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-02 18:43 ---
Subject: Bug 37977
Author: krebbel
Date: Sun Nov 2 18:42:04 2008
New Revision: 141537
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141537
Log:
2008-11-02 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-02 18:48 ---
Fixed with the patch above.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 14:19
---
Fails on s390 and s390x as well.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-25 09:05 ---
This problem has already been fixed for GCC 4.3 (#34641). The testcase from
that PR didn't fail for GCC 4.2 so I didn't apply the patch on 4.2 as well. But
now the patch should be fine for 4.2. I've verified
--- Comment #6 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-25 15:08 ---
Subject: Bug 35258
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Feb 25 15:07:17 2008
New Revision: 132628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132628
Log:
2008-02-25 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #33 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-23 12:37
---
Your patch from 2009-06-30 prevents the following code from being implemented
jumpless on S/390:
int a, b;
...
int x = a == b;
In emit_store_flag the following code now invokes emit_store_flag_1 instead
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-11 07:56 ---
The same happens when bootstrapping on s390x while building libdecnumber. Here
is a reduced testcase:
typedef struct
{
unsigned char bits;
unsigned short int lsu[1];
} decNumber;
void
decCompareOp (decNumber
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: s390x-ibm-linux
GCC host triplet: s390x-ibm-linux
GCC target triplet: s390x-ibm
--- Comment #1 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-01 15:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=18687)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18687action=view)
Testcase
Compile with -O2 -fPIC -g
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41535
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-07 12:35 ---
The shorter testcase does not fail with -O2 -fPIC on GCC rev. 137553.
But I can confirm the ICE with the first example. For large GOTs (4k) we
rewrite a symbol reference as a GOTENT relocation
--- Comment #4 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-14 06:57 ---
Subject: Bug 36745
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Jul 14 06:56:46 2008
New Revision: 13
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=13
Log:
2008-07-14 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #1 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-21 06:55 ---
Subject: Bug 36822
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Jul 21 06:54:34 2008
New Revision: 138022
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=138022
Log:
2008-07-21 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #2 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-31 11:36 ---
Fixed.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #8 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-18 12:02 ---
This also seem to break S/390 bootstrap currently. Please see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-09/msg00304.html
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: s390x-ibm-linux
GCC
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 16:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=20074)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20074action=view)
Experimental patch
This patch fixes the problem for me. Testsuites are still running.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 13:51 ---
Subject: Bug 43280
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Mar 11 13:51:00 2010
New Revision: 157386
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157386
Log:
2010-03-11 Andreas Krebbel andreas.kreb...@de.ibm.com
--- Comment #8 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-11 14:06 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Why does the new testcase have
+/* { dg-require-effective-target lp64 } */
when the failure is shown with -m32 on x86-64?
I've removed that in the new version. Thanks
--- Comment #3 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 11:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=20327)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20327action=view)
(delta) Reduced testcase
The S/390 movstr expander requires the target operand to be a
register_operand
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
