On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/15/2013 08:24 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >>>> Ok, it's really an alias.c bug, but it is Alpha, and aoliva has already >>>> provided an unreviewed patch... >> >>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547 >> >>> The patch in #C4 is ok. >> >> Thanks, I'm checking it in (first patch below), but reviewing the logic >> that uses negative sizes, I found a number of places that should use the >> absolute value, and others in which being conservative about negative >> sizes is unnecessary (e.g., when dealing with CONST_INT addresses). >> That was implemented and regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu. Uros, would >> you give the second patch a spin on alpha to make sure it doesn't >> regress? Ok to install it? > > Thanks, I started a bootstrap/regtest run. If everything goes as > expected, the results will be available in ~10h from now... The results looks good [1], no regressions with patch. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-01/msg01706.html Uros.
