--- Comment #11 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 17:06 ---
Subject: Bug 38857
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jan 29 17:06:01 2009
New Revision: 143762
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143762
Log:
2009-01-29 H.J. Lu
Backport from mainline:
2009-
--- Comment #10 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 10:55
---
Fixed with above commit.
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 10:53
---
Subject: Bug 38857
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu Jan 29 10:53:15 2009
New Revision: 143753
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143753
Log:
2009-01-29 Andrey Belevantsev
Alexander Mon
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 11:31 ---
I think it is fine to submit the patch as is, assuming you've
bootstrapped/regtested it. Please mail it to gcc-patches for review.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38857
--- Comment #7 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-22 12:19
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> -static bool code_motion_path_driver (insn_t, av_set_t, ilist_t,
> - cmpd_local_params_p, void *);
> +static int code_motion_path_driver (insn_t, av_se
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 23:16 ---
-static bool code_motion_path_driver (insn_t, av_set_t, ilist_t,
- cmpd_local_params_p, void *);
+static int code_motion_path_driver (insn_t, av_set_t, ilist_t,
+
--- Comment #5 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-01-20 23:12 ---
I tested the patch on my original code (that the included test was cut down
from) and it compiled that program with no problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38857
--- Comment #4 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 15:47
---
Created an attachment (id=17153)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17153&action=view)
proposed patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38857
--- Comment #3 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 15:45
---
The assert that fails is checking whether an instruction was correctly
disconnected from the insn stream (at its original location) to be inserted on
the scheduling boundary by adjusting PREV_INSN/NEXT_INSN links (
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-19 22:49 ---
Yah, seen -> CONFIRMED
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-19 09:49 ---
P1 as this happens on a secondary target with -O3.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
12 matches
Mail list logo
