[Bug target/94826] [8/9 regression] ICE in gcc.dg/pr94780.c after r10-7999
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94826 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed for 8.5 in r8-10496-ge031d8024aa22d31ceb85180a6607b3d6bb01481 and by the above commit for 9.4+ too.
[Bug target/94826] [8/9 regression] ICE in gcc.dg/pr94780.c after r10-7999
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94826 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:540e1de23a70360fe9b626df8420be704d02e3a7 commit r9-8890-g540e1de23a70360fe9b626df8420be704d02e3a7 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Wed Apr 29 15:55:39 2020 +0200 rs6000: Fix rs6000_atomic_assign_expand_fenv [PR94826] This is the rs6000 version of the earlier committed x86, aarch64 and arm fixes, as create_tmp_var_raw is used because the C FE can call this outside of function context, we need to make sure the first references to those VAR_DECLs are through a TARGET_EXPR, so that it gets gimple_add_tmp_var marked in whatever function it gets expanded in. Without that DECL_CONTEXT is NULL and the vars aren't added as local decls of the containing function. 2020-04-29 Jakub Jelinek PR target/94826 * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_atomic_assign_expand_fenv): Use TARGET_EXPR instead of MODIFY_EXPR for first assignment to fenv_var, fenv_clear and old_fenv variables. For fenv_addr take address of TARGET_EXPR of fenv_var with void_node initializer. Formatting fixes. (cherry picked from commit c7137fcc7cbc1f1f14f9fed75adcc6bd8f1d418c)
[Bug target/94826] [8/9 regression] ICE in gcc.dg/pr94780.c after r10-7999
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94826 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner --- Is this something we want in GCC 8 & 9? If so, is it just a lack of time to proper regtesting? If so, I can find someone on our team to do the backport and testing. Or is the backport not so straightforward?
[Bug target/94826] [8/9 regression] ICE in gcc.dg/pr94780.c after r10-7999
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94826 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9/10 regression] ICE in |[8/9 regression] ICE in |gcc.dg/pr94780.c after |gcc.dg/pr94780.c after |r10-7999|r10-7999 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed for 10+ so far.
