http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #15 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-22
18:47:04 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Wed Dec 22 18:46:57 2010
New Revision: 168177
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168177
Log:
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #16 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-22
18:49:31 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Wed Dec 22 18:49:24 2010
New Revision: 168178
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168178
Log:
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #14 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-19
19:50:20 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Dec 19 19:50:17 2010
New Revision: 168072
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168072
Log:
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-18
17:10:37 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Dec 18 17:10:34 2010
New Revision: 168026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168026
Log:
PR target/46915
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #12 from Rolf Eike Beer e...@sf-mail.de 2010-12-18 22:27:40 UTC
---
Any chance this gets backported?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-18 22:42:13 UTC ---
Any chance this gets backported?
It's not a regression, but I think it should be backported since it breaks
Linux in a somewhat random manner. I'm currently testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
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=46915
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 12:44:21 UTC ---
Yeah, the insn count for asm is just a guess. You should never put inline asm
into a delay slot, you really don't know how big it is or if it is suitable
for
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 12:51:51 UTC ---
Thanks, I'll look at that. However, I think branch_to_delay_slot_p can
be improved. It probably should also check for asms and return FALSE
if it finds one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 02:45:37 UTC ---
Reduced testcase attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 02:45:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 22731
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22731
xxx.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 02:49:57 UTC ---
Reduced testcase attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 03:59:08 UTC ---
Testing attached change. branch_to_delay_slot_p didn't correctly
handle asms, etc. When it is fixed, branch_needs_nop_p isn't needed.
It also didn't handle all cases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 03:59:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 22734
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22734
pa.c.d
16 matches
Mail list logo
