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
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.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-08/msg01022.html
2005-08-31 Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR rtl-opt/23601