On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 10:05:54PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > [This is a repost of a patch previously posted on 3/29/2017. > > Eric, I hope you might consider that this falls within your scope > > of maintenance. Thanks.] > > My viewpoint is that it's better to keep the assertions and fix the back-end > instead, which looks rather straightforward.
The only straightforward way I see is to use a rs6000_store_data_bypass_p instead, which would be doing the same thing. :-( [ It of course is easy to workaround the specific problem in the testcase, but that does not solve any of the underlying problems. ] Segher
