https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #21 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #19)
> (In reply to Julien Margetts from comment #17)
> > The following test case still fails with the patch applied (originally bug
> > 70362)
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #20 from Julien Margetts ---
It is the gcc_assert (REG_P (operands[0])); in arm_reload_in_hi which fires,
which as far as I can see is still in trunk today.
At this point rtx operands[0] looks like this:
08 2d c2 7a 53 2b 00 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #19 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Julien Margetts from comment #17)
> The following test case still fails with the patch applied (originally bug
> 70362)
>
> arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv3m -c -o c_compat_x_tst.o
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #17 from Julien Margetts ---
The following test case still fails with the patch applied (originally bug
70362)
arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv3m -c -o c_compat_x_tst.o
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-4_x.c
The assert in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> Patch applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2016-03/msg00740.html - just in case someone
wants a link to it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.4 |6.0
--- Comment #15 from Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmargetts at ocz dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #13 from Nick Clifton ---
Patch applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #11 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #10)
> Created attachment 38118 [details]
> This patch fixes your particular test case, but I am not sure if it will
> handle all of the ICEs in the kernel. Please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 38118
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38118=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Arnd,
This patch fixes your particular test case, but I am not sure if it will
handle all of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Arnd Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arnd at linaro dot org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
More reduced testcase:
typedef struct
{
char bits;
short val;
} code;
union uu
{
short us;
char b[2];
};
int a, b, c, f, g, h;
code *d;
code e;
int
fn1 ()
{
char i;
do
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems that the solution is to implement TARGET_SECONDARY_RELOAD and remove the
obsoleted reload_in and reload_out patterns
21 matches
Mail list logo
