http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.3 |4.6.4
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #21 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-22
09:25:48 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Feb 22 09:25:35 2012
New Revision: 184461
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184461
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #19 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-20
13:41:39 UTC ---
FYI, after updating to SVN 184386 (2012-02-20) I see 14 new FAILs in the avr
test suite; all of which can be cured with -fno-dse:
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-20
13:52:50 UTC ---
Please just fix up your backend, e.g. by turning that sp = hfp move (insn 47
above) into an UNSPEC move.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||denisc at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-19
18:56:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
I believe this is just because of very weird target avr stuff, either it is a
target bug that can be fixed up in the backend
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #15 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-19
23:24:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Well, it is certainly desirable not to process the prologue insns during
init_alias_analysis. The fact that stack pointer has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
00:22:19 UTC ---
Well, you or whomever wants to fix this bug needs to propose some solution.
I'm not familiar with avr, so I don't know if avr is doing something like this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
06:54:00 UTC ---
FIND_BASE_TERM is actually supposed just an alternate rtx expression, not its
find_base_term value, so something like (perhaps with more conditions, when r28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.2 |4.6.3
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-11
15:46:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Already wrong in the .expand dump:
This comment somehow ended up in the wrong PR. It should be in bug 50078.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
08:07:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Sounds like some of the latent RTL alias issues we have with regarding to
find_base_value and friends (see some i?86 bugreport I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15
11:05:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Sounds like some of the latent RTL alias issues we have with regarding to
find_base_value and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[avr]: DSE: wrong code for |[4.6/4.7
18 matches
Mail list logo
