Re: [RFC: Patch, PR 60102] [4.9/4.10 Regression] powerpc fp-bit ices@dwf_regno

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:03:56PM +0000, rohitarul...@freescale.com wrote:
>       PR target/60102

--- libgcc/config/rs6000/linux-unwind.h (revision 213110)                       
                                                                   
+++ libgcc/config/rs6000/linux-unwind.h (working copy)                          
                                                                   
@@ -274,8 +274,8 @@ ppc_fallback_frame_state (struct _Unwind                    
                                                                   
 #ifdef __SPE__                                                                 
                                                                   
   for (i = 14; i < 32; i++)                                                    
                                                                   
     {                                                                          
                                                                   
-      fs->regs.reg[i + FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER - 1].how = REG_SAVED_OFFSET;      
                                                                   
-      fs->regs.reg[i + FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER - 1].loc.offset                   
                                                                   
+      fs->regs.reg[i + FIRST_SPE_HIGH_REGNO - 4].how = REG_SAVED_OFFSET;       
                                                                   
+      fs->regs.reg[i + FIRST_SPE_HIGH_REGNO - 4].loc.offset                    
                                                                   
        = (long) &regs->vregs - new_cfa + 4 * i;                                
                                                                   
     }                                                                          
                                                                   
 #endif                                                                         
                                                                   

is a different index, previously i + 116, newly i + 113, is that
intentional?

        Jakub