--- Comment #28 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-30 08:54 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Anyone else could test it, please?
ok, I tested it for linux64 and and for w64 without any new problems.
I applied the patch (see rev. #143780). Just the testcase is missing.
Do you apply
--- Comment #29 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-30 09:23 ---
Subject: Bug 39002
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 30 09:22:48 2009
New Revision: 143782
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143782
Log:
PR target/39002
* g++.dg/torture/pr39002.C: New
--- Comment #30 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-30 09:29 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #16 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 10:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=17208)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17208action=view)
gcc44-pr39002.patch
As MS_ABI sseregs save area isn't counted into frame.allocate anymore, IMHO
--- Comment #17 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-29
10:47 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Created an attachment (id=17208)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17208action=view) [edit]
gcc44-pr39002.patch
As MS_ABI sseregs save area isn't counted
--- Comment #18 from r dot emrich at de dot tecosim dot com 2009-01-29
11:34 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
Created an attachment (id=17208)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17208action=view) [edit]
gcc44-pr39002.patch
As MS_ABI
--- Comment #19 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 12:03 ---
Anyone else could test it, please?
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 12:21 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Anyone else could test it, please?
I am currently on to test it for w64. We noticed a regression reasoned by this
for this target, too (sadly we found it pretty late).
This patch seems
--- Comment #21 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 12:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=17210)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17210action=view)
Alternative patch suggested
This is the patch I test at the moment.
--
--- Comment #22 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 12:52 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
Created an attachment (id=17210)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17210action=view) [edit]
Alternative patch suggested
This is the patch I test at the moment.
The
--- Comment #23 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 13:23 ---
I don't see why ix86_expand_epilogue should be changed. Do you have some
testcase which shows where your change improves generated code?
I can certainly test on Linux, but as frame.nsseregs is always 0 there, it
--- Comment #24 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 13:45 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
I don't see why ix86_expand_epilogue should be changed. Do you have some
testcase which shows where your change improves generated code?
I can certainly test on Linux, but as
--- Comment #25 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 13:54 ---
Can't reproduce that with a cross compiler.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39002
--- Comment #26 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 14:04 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
Can't reproduce that with a cross compiler.
You are right, I changed something else, too. Sorry.
But this patch to expand_epilogue is proper IIUC
Comment tells
If we're only restoring
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39002
--- Comment #27 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2009-01-29 22:48 ---
I can confirm that after applying pr_w64.diff of Kai Tietz to svn rev 143768,
my similar problem which I reported at mingw-w64 site (which is also related
to the 143119 commit) is fixed. Thanks to all who wonked on
16 matches
Mail list logo
