http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #12 from Meador Inge ---
The latest patch LGTM. I don't currently have ARM hardware setup for a
bootstrap, but I did run all the GCC and GLIBC tests for the default options
and -mthumb via QEMU. I saw no regressions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #5 from Meador Inge ---
Created attachment 32253
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32253&action=edit
Work in progress patch.
Yeah, I am came to the same conclusion after making that comment that removing
the asserts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #3 from Meador Inge ---
As shown in the backtrace, the ICE occurs when GCSE tries generate a move.
The the following asserts fire in 'gen_movsi':
gcc_assert (GET_CODE (tmp) == SYMBOL_REF);
gcc_asser
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
Meador Inge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meadori at codesourcery dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57651
--- Comment #4 from Meador Inge ---
OK, I will look into it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57651
--- Comment #2 from Meador Inge ---
Since Jakub posted a patch for the PATH problem [1] and it seems that the
permission issue might be a non-issue [2] is there anything else let for this
bug?
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg0112
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53702
--- Comment #3 from Meador Inge 2012-06-17
16:15:51 UTC ---
I will look into this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53352
--- Comment #7 from Meador Inge 2012-05-17
20:31:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> There is no call to 'foo' in the test case here. I guess you meant 'bar', but
> even so executable test cases are strongly preferred over manual inspection of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53352
--- Comment #3 from Meador Inge 2012-05-17
16:42:04 UTC ---
It can easily be seen my inspection of the assembly code. As I mentioned
before, 0xFF00 gets passed to 'foo'. Anyway, I posted an executable case along
with my patch here: http://gcc.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53352
--- Comment #1 from Meador Inge 2012-05-14
22:52:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 27405
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27405
Reproduction case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53352
Bug #: 53352
Summary: Incorrect CSE optimization on RTL expressions with a
paradoxical subreg
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52672
--- Comment #6 from Meador Inge 2012-04-13
23:07:09 UTC ---
Should the fix for this go into 4.6 as well? If not, then I will close the
issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52836
--- Comment #1 from Meador Inge 2012-04-02
20:54:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 27070
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27070
Reproduction case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52836
Bug #: 52836
Summary: internal compiler error: in push_minipool_fix, at
config/arm/arm.c:13084
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52672
--- Comment #3 from Meador Inge 2012-03-23
20:21:06 UTC ---
Testing a patch now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52672
--- Comment #2 from Meador Inge 2012-03-23
16:44:06 UTC ---
Even smaller repro:
constexpr unsigned long a = *((int*)(*((int*)0x0)));
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52672
Meador Inge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.6.4 |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from Meador Inge 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52672
Bug #: 52672
Summary: internal compiler error: in cxx_eval_indirect_ref, at
cp/semantics.c:6766
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40419
Meador Inge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meadori at codesourcery dot
19 matches
Mail list logo
