On 11 April 2017 at 21:43, Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 04/11/2017 03:30 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> Hi Vladimir, >> >> On 10 April 2017 at 17:05, Vladimir Makarov <vmaka...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> This is the second try to fix >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478 >>> >>> The first try patch triggered a latent bug and broke one Fortran >>> testcase >>> on x86-64. >>> >>> The patch was successfully bootstrapped on x86-64 and tested on >>> x86-64, >>> ppc64, and aarch64. >>> >>> Committed as rev. 246808. >>> >>> >> This patch causes regression on arm*hf configurations: >> Executed from: gcc.target/arm/arm.exp >> gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times >> ldrh\\tr[0-9]+ 2 >> gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times >> strh\\tr[0-9]+ 2 >> gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times >> vld1\\.16\\t{d[0-9]+\\[[0-9]+\\]}, \\[r[0-9]+\\] 2 >> gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times >> vmov\\.f16\\tr[0-9]+, s[0-9]+ 4 >> gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times >> vmov\\.f16\\ts[0-9]+, r[0-9]+ 4 >> gcc.target/arm/armv8_2-fp16-move-1.c scan-assembler-times >> vst1\\.16\\t{d[0-9]+\\[[0-9]+\\]}, \\[r[0-9]+\\] 2 >> >> > I've committed a patch which is supposed to fix the regression. >
I confirm it's now OK. Thanks for the prompt fix! Christophe
