--- Comment #6 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 11:47
---
I've now tested and submitted the patch, thanks.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #8 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 20:27
---
Subject: Bug 27006
Author: uweigand
Date: Thu Apr 13 20:26:59 2006
New Revision: 112923
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112923
Log:
2006-04-13 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAI
--- Comment #9 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 20:33
---
Subject: Bug 27006
Author: uweigand
Date: Thu Apr 13 20:33:51 2006
New Revision: 112924
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112924
Log:
2006-04-13 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAI
--- Comment #10 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 20:35
---
Fixed for 4.1 and mainline.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-22 13:27
---
Looking somewhat more into this problem, there are other places where
reload decides to reload an CONST_INT as address. Where this happens,
it usually uses Pmode as the mode to do the reload in (which makes
sense
--- Comment #2 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-26 12:58
---
This looks like a source-code problem. The assembler instruction
union {DItype __ll; struct {USItype __h, __l;} __i; } __x;
__asm__ ("lr %N0,%1\n\tmr %0,%2" : "
--- Comment #5 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-26 20:22
---
Subject: Bug 27661
Author: uweigand
Date: Fri May 26 20:21:53 2006
New Revision: 114141
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114141
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/27661
*
= gen_reg_rtx (V4SFmode);
+})
However, the underlying abuse of RTL semantics when describing the
vspltisw instruction in V4SFmode apparently pre-dates this patch.
The easiest way to fix this would appear to use an UNSPEC to
describe the insn semantics. Any better idea?
--
Summary: Miscompile o
--- Comment #2 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-31 16:59
---
I'm not sure (subreg:SF (const_int)) is canonical RTL, I haven't seen
subregs of anything but REG or MEM.
In any case, I don't really see what this would buy us over an UNSPEC -- will
the generi
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-01 21:30
---
Yes, that makes sense -- in fact, it looks like altivec_vslw_v4sf can then be
removed as well. I'm currenly testing a patch to that effect ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27842
--- Comment #7 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 17:01
---
Subject: Bug 27842
Author: uweigand
Date: Tue Jun 6 17:01:27 2006
New Revision: 114438
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114438
Log:
PR target/27842
* confi
--- Comment #8 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 17:05
---
Subject: Bug 27842
Author: uweigand
Date: Tue Jun 6 17:04:56 2006
New Revision: 114439
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114439
Log:
PR target/27842
* confi
--- Comment #9 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-06 17:10
---
Fixed on 4.1 branch and mainline.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-14 19:27
---
Yes, looks like this is long fixed. Closing bug now.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-05 14:59
---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Uli, can you please have a look at Richard's and Paolo's patches and does one
> or the other seem like a "better" fix?
I've yet another suggestio
--- Comment #19 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-10 15:34
---
Subject: Bug 37053
Author: uweigand
Date: Mon Aug 10 15:34:09 2009
New Revision: 150626
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=150626
Log:
PR target/37053
* r
--- Comment #24 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 00:23
---
Well, the workaround removes the ICE, but constructor handling
appears still broken:
ada/sem_prag.o(.text+0xa58): In function
`sem_prag.analyze_pragma.check_no_identifier':
../../gcc-head/gcc/ada/sem_pra
--- Comment #5 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-07 18:03
---
Alternatively, the PR is also fixed by rth's patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00424.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24621
--- Comment #28 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-15 18:31
---
Just one additional comment: the patch from comment #10 was rejected,
maybe because it required changes to the core gimplifier.
However, I've tested just the Ada front-end pieces from that patch,
and
--- Comment #30 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-17 01:08
---
With that patch applied, Ada bootstraps on s390-ibm-linux and
s390x-ibm-linux. Regression test results are at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-11/msg00831.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-17 12:45
---
It looks like the simplify-rtx patch is not really the cause of the problem,
it simply exposes a pre-existing bug in combine and/or flow.
Before combine, we have a situation that looks like (simplified):
insn
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 11:20
---
Subject: Bug 25311
Author: uweigand
Date: Fri Dec 9 11:20:40 2005
New Revision: 108278
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108278
Log:
PR target/25311
* config/s39
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 11:26
---
Subject: Bug 25311
Author: uweigand
Date: Fri Dec 9 11:26:47 2005
New Revision: 108279
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108279
Log:
PR target/25311
* config/s39
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 11:29
---
Fixed.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 11:30
---
Looks like a reload problem, I'll be posting a patch ...
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25416
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-14 23:35
---
Subject: Bug 25310
Author: uweigand
Date: Wed Dec 14 23:34:51 2005
New Revision: 108543
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108543
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/25310
* r
--- Comment #5 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-14 23:40
---
Subject: Bug 25310
Author: uweigand
Date: Wed Dec 14 23:40:22 2005
New Revision: 108544
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108544
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/25310
* r
--- Comment #6 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-14 23:40
---
Fixed.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #11 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-16 18:05
---
Patch posted.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-18 16:06
---
Subject: Bug 21041
Author: uweigand
Date: Sun Dec 18 16:06:55 2005
New Revision: 108760
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=108760
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/21041
*
--- Comment #13 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-23 18:38
---
Subject: Bug 21041
Author: uweigand
Date: Fri Dec 23 18:38:43 2005
New Revision: 109019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109019
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/21041
*
--- Comment #14 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-23 18:44
---
Subject: Bug 21041
Author: uweigand
Date: Fri Dec 23 18:44:07 2005
New Revision: 109020
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109020
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/21041
*
--- Comment #15 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-23 18:45
---
Fixed.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #15 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-19 23:10
---
This testcase also fails on s390x-ibm-linux (crash of f951).
The patch in comment 13 fixes the crash.
Any chance of getting the fix into 4.1?
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-19 23:19
---
FYI, the glibc folks have made a similar request w.r.t. adding
128-bit long double (IEEE quad) support for s390(x)-ibm-linux.
We're currently preparing a patch -- if there's still a chance
of getting
--- Comment #14 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-20 18:39
---
Some additional details about the s390x failure. This is caused by a
miscompile of the fdd2a00__write__2 support routine:
lg %r4,168(%r15) # 35*movdi_64/8 [length = 6]
lg
ute ((aligned)) ignored on vector variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28862
--- Comment #6 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-05 12:41
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Anyways I am going to test the obvious fix unless you (Ulrich) want to do it.
Please go ahead, thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28862
--- Comment #7 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-05 12:47
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Is this also supposed to fix the problem I posted in comment #2? I applied
> that
> patch to my gcc but it didn't fix the generated code for me. It's just weird
>
s: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30590
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-21 15:05
---
Subject: Bug 30761
Author: uweigand
Date: Wed Feb 21 15:05:01 2007
New Revision: 122199
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122199
Log:
PR middle-end/30761
* r
--- Comment #6 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12 19:34
---
I haven't verified that this problem is fixed -- the patch was originally
intended to fix another bug uncovered by Peter Bergner, and I just added
this PR number to the check-in due to Andrew's comment
--- Comment #12 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-14 15:26
---
This does fix my testcase on mainline. Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30590
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-23 14:51
---
I don't think the patch is correct; according to the C standard,
the third argument of memset is of type size_t, which must be
an *unsigned* type, so it cannot in fact be negative.
What apparently happens is
--- Comment #9 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-26 22:10
---
Subject: Bug 30761
Author: uweigand
Date: Thu Apr 26 22:10:09 2007
New Revision: 124199
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124199
Log:
PR middle-end/30761
* r
--- Comment #10 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-27 14:59
---
Subject: Bug 30761
Author: uweigand
Date: Fri Apr 27 14:59:21 2007
New Revision: 124219
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124219
Log:
PR middle-end/30761
* r
--- Comment #11 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-27 15:03
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Ulrich, in response to your question in Comment #6, yes, this bug appears in
> 4.1 and 4.2, not just in 4.3. So, if you think it's safe to backport the
> reload patch, it
--- Comment #6 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-12 23:35
---
Changing component to middle-end as the problem is not actually in the C++
front-end.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-12 23:43
---
Sa's patch isn't quite correct as it ignores the result of
the build_qualified_type call. The following patch should
fix that:
diff -urNp toolchain/gcc.orig/gcc/tree.c toolchain/gcc/gcc/tree.c
---
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-18
17:42 ---
I think the middle-end *should* allow back-ends to use SUBREGs
in that way. cleanup_subreg_operands should really act only on
SUBREGs that are part of an operand, and not on SUBREGs that
are part of the
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-18
18:45 ---
OK, now I see the problem: cleanup_subreg_operands *does* indeed
touch only operands. However, the result of the splitter matches
the *llgt_didi insn instead of *llgt_disi, because after reload
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-18
19:01 ---
This test case fails on s390(x) as well; in fact it is quite annoying
because it causes the whole test suite to hang ...
The reason for this appears to be that the Ada runtime has installed
a segfault
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-18
21:15 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20054
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-09
16:09 ---
I cannot reproduce the problem on today's GCC 4.0.0 version ...
What is different for you? Do you have any patches on top?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20917
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-09
16:16 ---
D'oh. Ignore my previous post; I forgot that the 4.0 branch now defaults
to checking disabled. I can indeed reproduce the problem, an am looking
into it now ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-09
18:26 ---
Here's a reduced test case:
extern void abort (void);
extern void **alloc (void);
void *test (void)
{
void **p = alloc ();
if (!p) abort ();
__builtin_set_thread_pointer (p);
return *p;
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-11
19:40 ---
Reduced testcase:
struct point { double x, y; };
extern void use (struct point);
void test (struct point *pc, struct point p1)
{
struct point p0 = *pc;
if (p0.x == p1.x && p0.y == p1.y)
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
15:48 ---
The problem originates in find_reloads_subreg_address, which decides
to widen access to a memory reference. The instruction we have is:
(insn 129 127 130 10 (parallel [
(set (reg:SI 106
--- Comment #15 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-11 15:12
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Ulrich asked for some time on the trunk (we have built all of our
> packages against a patched 4.3 tree now with no appearant problems as
> well).
OK, in that case I have n
--- Comment #1 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-12 14:37
---
Subject: Bug 37097
Author: uweigand
Date: Tue Aug 12 14:35:54 2008
New Revision: 139019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=139019
Log:
PR bootstrap/37097
* bu
--- Comment #2 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-12 14:45
---
Should be fixed now ...
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-05 18:04
---
The test case tests for expected failures. It seems there is now an additional
message being output:
/home/meissner/fsf-src/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/spu/intrinsics-1.c:13:
warning: passing argument 2 of
--- Comment #11 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-21 18:54
---
The secondary reload hook does not need to make the decision whether or
not indexed addresses are allowed; that decision has already been taken.
The purpose of the secondary reload hook is simply to do whatever
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-25 22:15
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This problem has already been fixed for GCC 4.3 (#34641). The testcase from
> that PR didn't fail for GCC 4.2 so I didn't apply the patch on 4.2 as well.
> But
> n
--- Comment #16 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-04 14:51
---
Hi Jakub,
we need the same changes in both .eh_frame and .dwarf_frame;
does the gas .cfi_ support both sections?
I'm wondering how "save & restore" should work across two
different FDEs -- i
--- Comment #1 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-07 16:02
---
Subject: Bug 38028
Author: uweigand
Date: Sat Mar 7 16:02:30 2009
New Revision: 144696
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=144696
Log:
PR middle-end/38028
* fu
g
ReportedBy: uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: spu-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39422
--- Comment #2 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-12 14:00
---
Subject: Bug 39181
Author: uweigand
Date: Thu Mar 12 14:00:21 2009
New Revision: 144811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=144811
Log:
PR target/39181
* config/s
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-12 14:01
---
Fixed.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #2 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-12 14:02
---
Fixed.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
o in Fortran front-end
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target
--- Comment #9 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-08 18:39
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> This is on (set (reg:DF X) (mem:DF ((plus:DI (reg:DI Y) (const_int 3.
> When X is still a pseudo, this is considered valid, as lfd accept any offset,
> but when RA chooses
ords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: spu-unknown-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41857
--- Comment #1 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-29 18:49
---
Proposed fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg01757.html
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-02 14:30
---
Subject: Bug 41857
Author: uweigand
Date: Mon Nov 2 14:30:39 2009
New Revision: 153810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=153810
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/41857
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-02 14:35
---
Fixed.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-17 16:22
---
Subject: Bug 41857
Author: uweigand
Date: Tue Nov 17 16:21:56 2009
New Revision: 154255
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154255
Log:
PR tree-optimization/41857
*
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-28
22:09 ---
Same problem on s390(x)-ibm-linux.
B.t.w. isn't the real problem that the CXX that comes out of the configure
machinery is simply incorrect? I.e. it should be something like "xgcc -x c++"
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29
23:52 ---
I've found some time to look a bit more into this. First of all, here's
a much reduced test case:
procedure CXB4005 is
type Alphanumeric is array (Positive range <>) of Character;
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:53
---
This is a bug in the old loop optimizer introduced by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg00690.html
The problem with this patch is that it assumes
gen_move_insn where the source is a PLUS representing
--- Comment #5 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:54
---
Created an attachment (id=10106)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10106&action=view)
Possible fix (not yet tested)
This patch is a possible fix to the problem;
it works by using force_
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 21:56
---
What command line options? I cannot reproduce an ICE with
the usual sets of options ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24615
--- Comment #6 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 16:22
---
Tested patch in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00113.html
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 16:32
---
Confirmed. Looks like a backend problem, I'm working on it.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #2 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 20:27
---
Clearly a backend bug. Working on it ...
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 23:06
---
Subject: Bug 24600
Author: uweigand
Date: Wed Nov 2 23:06:26 2005
New Revision: 106404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106404
Log:
ChangeLog:
PR target/24600
--- Comment #8 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 23:09
---
Fixed.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #7 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 23:16
---
Subject: Bug 24615
Author: uweigand
Date: Wed Nov 2 23:16:31 2005
New Revision: 106405
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106405
Log:
ChangeLog:
PR target/24615
* con
--- Comment #8 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 23:18
---
Fixed.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-03 02:04
---
Likely backend problem, investigating ...
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-03 02:04
---
Likely backend problem, investigating ...
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-03 04:16
---
Subject: Bug 24620
Author: uweigand
Date: Thu Nov 3 04:16:52 2005
New Revision: 106422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=106422
Log:
ChangeLog:
PR target/24620
* con
--- Comment #5 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-03 04:19
---
Fixed.
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-03 18:40
---
This looks like a reload problem related to the one I fixed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg01133.html
I'm currently testing a fix ...
--
uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org ch
--- Comment #11 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 19:56
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I don't see where reload is creating the whole instruction; maybe I am
> misunderstanding that statement.
Well, after reload you have insn 624, which presumably didn
--- Comment #1 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-08 16:11
---
Why doesn't this make sense? The address space is a property of the pointed-to
type, not the pointer type itself (just like const/volatile-ness) ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43292
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
12:45 ---
I don't see it failing on the 4.0 branch. I haven't been able to build
mainline Ada for several months now ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19381
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
