On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:35 PM, zhangjian <bamvor.zhangj...@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi, guys
>
> I encounter a gcc failure when I build mysql on opensuse[1]
> 5.6.17/storage/perfschema/pfs_account.cc:320:1: error: could not split insn
> [ 1245s] }
> [ 1245s] ^
> [ 1245s] (insn 482 1770 1461 (parallel [
> [ 1245s] (set (reg:SI 1 x1 [orig:167 D.16835 ] [167])
> [ 1245s] (mem/v:SI (reg/f:DI 0 x0 [orig:166 D.16844 ] [166])
> [-1 S4 A32]))
> [ 1245s] (set (mem/v:SI (reg/f:DI 0 x0 [orig:166 D.16844 ] [166])
> [-1 S4 A32])
> [ 1245s] (unspec_volatile:SI [
> [ 1245s] (ior:SI (mem/v:SI (reg/f:DI 0 x0 [orig:166
> D.16844 ] [166]) [-1 S4 A32])
> [ 1245s] (const_int 0 [0]))
> [ 1245s] (const_int 5 [0x5])
> [ 1245s] ] UNSPECV_ATOMIC_OP))
> [ 1245s] (clobber (reg:CC 66 cc))
> [ 1245s] (clobber (reg:SI 4 x4))
> [ 1245s] (clobber (reg:SI 3 x3))
> [ 1245s] ])
> /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/mysql-5.6.17/include/my_atomic.h:217 1814
> {atomic_fetch_orsi}
> [ 1245s] (expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:CC 66 cc)
> [ 1245s] (expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:SI 4 x4)
> [ 1245s] (expr_list:REG_UNUSED (reg:SI 3 x3)
> [ 1245s] (nil)))))
> [ 1245s]
> /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/mysql-5.6.17/storage/perfschema/pfs_account.cc:320:1:
> internal compiler error: in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2897
>
> Ihis bug could be fixed by Michael's patch(r217076):
> 2014-11-04 Michael Collison <michael.colli...@linaro.org>
>
> * config/aarch64/iterators.md (lconst_atomic): New mode attribute
> to support constraints for CONST_INT in atomic operations.
> * config/aarch64/atomics.md
> (atomic_<atomic_optab><mode>): Use lconst_atomic constraint.
> (atomic_nand<mode>): Likewise.
> (atomic_fetch_<atomic_optab><mode>): Likewise.
> (atomic_fetch_nand<mode>): Likewise.
> (atomic_<atomic_optab>_fetch<mode>): Likewise.
> (atomic_nand_fetch<mode>): Likewise.
>
> Michael's patch could be applied on the top of gcc 4.8 branch except the
> gcc/ChangeLog.
> Is it possible backport this patch to gcc 4.8 branch?
> I am new to here, I am not sure if I need send the patch with modified
> ChangeLog. Sorry if I break the rules.
Hi,
Since the patch applies to 4.8 smoothly, and you already provided the
revision number, I don't think an additional patch is needed. But is
the original patch for an existing bug? And what's about gcc 4_9
branch? Maybe you can create a PR against 4.8 (or 4.9) for tracking.
Another problem is you may need to wait for a while since it's holiday
time.
Thanks,
bin
>
> regards
>
> bamvor
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896667
>
