On 01/16/2014 10:21 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> So like this? Tested on x86_64 with
> make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\}
> i386.exp=pr9771-1.c'
>
> 2014-01-16 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR debug/54694
> * gcc.target/i386/pr9771-1.c (main): Rename to...
>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:51:24AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/16/2014 09:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Wonder if the test should be turned into dg-do compile,
> > or perhaps a hack like:
> > int xmain() __asm__ ("main");
> > int xmain()
> > instead of
> > int main()
> > to avoid the
On 01/16/2014 09:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Wonder if the test should be turned into dg-do compile,
> or perhaps a hack like:
> int xmain() __asm__ ("main");
> int xmain()
> instead of
> int main()
> to avoid the dynamic stack realigning in main (limit the test to *linux*
> then?), supply main w
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:40:33AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 08:06:07AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> On 01/15/2014 01:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 01:43:18PM -0800, Richard Henders
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 08:06:07AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 01/15/2014 01:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 01:43:18PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> >> --- /dev/null
>> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.targe
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 08:06:07AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/15/2014 01:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 01:43:18PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr54694.c
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> >> +/* { dg-do compi
On 01/15/2014 01:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 01:43:18PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr54694.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-O" } */
>> +
>> +register void *hfp __asm__("%ebp
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 01:43:18PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/15/2014 08:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > We should add a testcase to verify this.
> >
>
> I included the following testcase with the commit. I couldn't find a way
> to test this properly generically, so I just went with the o
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 01:43:18PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr54694.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O" } */
> +
> +register void *hfp __asm__("%ebp"); /* { dg-message "note: for" } */
Shouldn't that
On 01/15/2014 08:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> We should add a testcase to verify this.
>
I included the following testcase with the commit. I couldn't find a way
to test this properly generically, so I just went with the obvious i386 test.
r~
diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index c93bf23
On 01/15/2014 08:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> -static tree GTY(()) global_regs_decl[FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER];
>> > +tree GTY(()) global_regs_decl[FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER];
> Do you need the GTY(()) marker here when there is GTY(()) already in the
> header?
> Otherwise looks good to me.
>
Fixed befo
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> IMO the test case is invalid, but as always an ICE is unacceptable.
>
> I can imagine there are some legitimate uses for absconding with
> the hard frame pointer, under -fomit-frame-pointer plus knowledge
> that the code is simple enough.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:23:45AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> --- a/gcc/reginfo.c
> +++ b/gcc/reginfo.c
> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ static const char initial_call_really_used_regs[] =
> CALL_REALLY_USED_REGISTERS;
> char global_regs[FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER];
>
> /* Declaration for the global regi
13 matches
Mail list logo
