On 30/08/2018 13:24, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Joey Ye writes:
>> Hi Bin & Richard,
>>
>> It is not as simple as keeping the assertion, which still fails even
>> with the change in reorg.c. The testing result is as following:
>>
>> I. With Bin's patch version 2 (removing the assertion in
Joey Ye writes:
> Hi Bin & Richard,
>
> It is not as simple as keeping the assertion, which still fails even
> with the change in reorg.c. The testing result is as following:
>
> I. With Bin's patch version 2 (removing the assertion in aarch64.c and
> adding the check in reorg.c): pr84682-2.c
typo: s/reorg.c/recog.c/g
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:20 AM Joey Ye wrote:
>
> Hi Bin & Richard,
>
> It is not as simple as keeping the assertion, which still fails even
> with the change in reorg.c. The testing result is as following:
>
> I. With Bin's patch version 2 (removing the assertion in
Hi Bin & Richard,
It is not as simple as keeping the assertion, which still fails even
with the change in reorg.c. The testing result is as following:
I. With Bin's patch version 2 (removing the assertion in aarch64.c and
adding the check in reorg.c): pr84682-2.c passes
II. With Richard's
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 2:47 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Joey Ye writes:
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> > index 07c55b1..9e965ab 100644
> > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> > +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> > @@ -5674,9 +5674,6 @@
Joey Ye writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> index 07c55b1..9e965ab 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> @@ -5674,9 +5674,6 @@ aarch64_classify_address (struct aarch64_address_info
> *info,
>&&
Ping^2 for Bin
The ICE is still there annoyingly.
Thanks,
Joey
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:21 AM Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>
> Hi Bin,
>
>
> On 22/03/18 11:07, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> > > Kyrill Tkachov writes:
> > >> Hi Bin,
> > >>
> >
Hi Bin,
On 22/03/18 11:07, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Kyrill Tkachov writes:
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> On 16/03/18 11:42, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This simple patch fixes test case
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Kyrill Tkachov writes:
>>> Hi Bin,
>>>
>>> On 16/03/18 11:42, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Kyrill Tkachov writes:
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> On 16/03/18 11:42, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This simple patch fixes test case failure for pr84682-2.c by returning
>>> false on
Kyrill Tkachov writes:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On 16/03/18 11:42, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This simple patch fixes test case failure for pr84682-2.c by returning
>> false on wrong mode rtx in aarch64_classify_address, rather than assert.
>>
>> Bootstrap and test on aarch64.
Hi Bin,
On 16/03/18 11:42, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
This simple patch fixes test case failure for pr84682-2.c by returning
false on wrong mode rtx in aarch64_classify_address, rather than assert.
Bootstrap and test on aarch64. Is it OK?
Thanks,
bin
2018-03-16 Bin Cheng
Hi,
This simple patch fixes test case failure for pr84682-2.c by returning
false on wrong mode rtx in aarch64_classify_address, rather than assert.
Bootstrap and test on aarch64. Is it OK?
Thanks,
bin
2018-03-16 Bin Cheng
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c
13 matches
Mail list logo