https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.2 |6.0
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |6.2
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Jul 8 15:04:54 2015
New Revision: 225561
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225561&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-08 Vladimir Makarov
PR middle-end/66334
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #9)
> >
> > I will work on the patch and commit it on next week.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> I tried this patch:
>
> https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #9)
>
> I will work on the patch and commit it on next week.
>
> Thanks.
I tried this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=ab377c74f283f3db51b4e25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #7)
> > I've looked at this. Insn 34 is transformed into
> >
> > ebx=ebx
> >
> > as pseudo 87 gets ebx. At the very en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #7)
> I've looked at this. Insn 34 is transformed into
>
> ebx=ebx
>
> as pseudo 87 gets ebx. At the very end. LRA removes the useless insn.
> Therefore there is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Should we do something special if a basic block calls BUILT_IN_UNWIND_RESUME?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> This seems to work:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/lra-lives.c b/gcc/lra-lives.c
> index 085411e..a0c6171 100644
> --- a/gcc/lra-lives.c
> +++ b/gcc/lra-lives.c
> @@ -979,8 +979,7 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
This seems to work:
diff --git a/gcc/lra-lives.c b/gcc/lra-lives.c
index 085411e..a0c6171 100644
--- a/gcc/lra-lives.c
+++ b/gcc/lra-lives.c
@@ -979,8 +979,7 @@ process_bb_lives (basic_block bb, int &curr_point, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
The block has a EDGE_ABNORMAL_CALL predecessor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Run-time testcases are nptl/tst-cancelx4.c and nptl/tst-cancelx5.c
in glibc when compiled with -fPIE -pie on Linux/x86.
15 matches
Mail list logo