On 23.12.2013 10:52, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hello,
As described in the PR, the ICE reason was the typo made when introducing
calls to add_hard_reg_set. Fixed by the first attached patch, bootstrapped
and tested on both ia64 and x86_64, committed as obvious.
The test case is very sensitive t
On 12/27/13 03:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 02:11:13PM +0400, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Testcase is very small. Why not add it?
Frankly, I think that the chances of this test uncovering similar
issues in the future are very small. It needs lots of options to
make it trigge
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 02:11:13PM +0400, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> >Testcase is very small. Why not add it?
>
> Frankly, I think that the chances of this test uncovering similar
> issues in the future are very small. It needs lots of options to
> make it trigger and even with this a specific r
On 23.12.2013 16:24, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hello,
As described in the PR, the ICE reason was the typo made when introducing
calls to add_hard_reg_set. Fixed by the first attached patch, bootstrapped
and tested on both ia64 and x86_64, commi
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As described in the PR, the ICE reason was the typo made when introducing
> calls to add_hard_reg_set. Fixed by the first attached patch, bootstrapped
> and tested on both ia64 and x86_64, committed as obvious.
>
> The test
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:52:25AM +0400, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> As described in the PR, the ICE reason was the typo made when
> introducing calls to add_hard_reg_set. Fixed by the first attached
> patch, bootstrapped and tested on both ia64 and x86_64, committed as
> obvious.
>
> The test c
