On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 03:13:40AM -0400, James A. Morrison wrote:
> Won't this break a disabled checking build since internal_throw will become
> unused?
No, because it won't. Look at what gcc_assert expands to when it's
disabled.
r~
On Sep 6, 2005, at 3:13 AM, James A. Morrison wrote:
Won't this break a disabled checking build since internal_throw will
become
unused?
Yes but this was more of a RFC rather than submitting a patch.
-- Pinski
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sep 5, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:27:54PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>> (insn 31 29 49 5 (set (mem/s/j:SI (plus:SI (reg/v/f:SI 47 [ env ])
>>> (const_int 4 [0x4])) [0 .ex+0 S4 A32])
On Sep 5, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:27:54PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
(insn 31 29 49 5 (set (mem/s/j:SI (plus:SI (reg/v/f:SI 47 [ env ])
(const_int 4 [0x4])) [0 .ex+0 S4 A32])
(mem/f:SI (plus:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 55)
On Sep 5, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:27:54PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
(insn 31 29 49 5 (set (mem/s/j:SI (plus:SI (reg/v/f:SI 47 [ env ])
(const_int 4 [0x4])) [0 .ex+0 S4 A32])
(mem/f:SI (plus:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 55)
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:27:54PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> (insn 31 29 49 5 (set (mem/s/j:SI (plus:SI (reg/v/f:SI 47 [ env ])
> (const_int 4 [0x4])) [0 .ex+0 S4 A32])
> (mem/f:SI (plus:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 55)
> (reg:SI 56))
> (cons
On Sep 5, 2005, at 8:27 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
Hello Richard,
s390 and s390x can't bootstrap with the following patch, because the
new assertion
introduced with the fixup_eh_region_note function is triggered.
Note this is recorded as PR 23711.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
