http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 6 15:52:36 2014
New Revision: 207564
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59575
* config/arm/arm.c (emit_multi_reg_push): Add dwarf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 6 15:52:17 2014
New Revision: 207563
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207563&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59575
* config/arm/arm.c (emit_multi_reg_push): Add dwarf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rth at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #30 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch bootstrapped ok on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf configured
--with-arch=armv7-a --with-fpu=neon-vfpv4 --with-mode=thumb --with-float=hard
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
Passed regtest too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #29 from Ryan Mansfield ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #28)
> (In reply to Ryan Mansfield from comment #27)
> > Yep, that fixes the ICE. Thanks
>
> Could you please bootstrap/regtest it if you have hw for that?
Yep, I ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Ryan Mansfield from comment #27)
> Yep, that fixes the ICE. Thanks
Could you please bootstrap/regtest it if you have hw for that?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #27 from Ryan Mansfield ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #25)
> Created attachment 31980 [details]
> gcc49-pr59575.patch
>
> Ah, of course, you're right, num_dwarf_regs is uninitialized. Fixed thusly.
Yep, that fixes the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31943|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31980
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31980&action=edit
gcc49-pr59575.patch
Ah, of course, you're right, num_dwarf_regs is uninitialized. Fixed thusly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #24 from Ryan Mansfield ---
$ valgrind ./cc1 -fexceptions ~/conftest.c
==5295== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==5295== Copyright (C) 2002-2012, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==5295== Using Valgrind-3.8.1 and LibVEX; rerun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #23 from Ryan Mansfield ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
> Can you
> break gen_rtx_fmt_E_stat if code == SEQUENCE
> and see where this SEQUENCE has been allocated and why the count is so
> bogusly high?
#1 0x0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, I've even tried:
for k in arm thumb; do for j in soft softfp hard; do for i in armv2 armv2a
armv3 armv3m armv4 armv4t armv5 armv5e armv5t armv5te armv6 armv6-m armv6j
armv6k armv6s-m armv6t2 armv6z armv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can you
break gen_rtx_fmt_E_stat if code == SEQUENCE
and see where this SEQUENCE has been allocated and why the count is so bogusly
high?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #20 from Ryan Mansfield ---
> Sorry, can't reproduce. Can you run it in the debugger
> p debug_rtx (p)
> up
> p debug_rtx (insn)
> ?
Sorry for the delay.
Starting program: /home/ryan/gnu/gcc/trunk/arm-eabi/gcc/./cc1 -fexceptions
/ho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Ryan Mansfield from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> > Can I ask for preprocessed source + options again?
>
> $ cat ~/conftest.c
> void bar ();
> void clean (int *);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #18 from Ryan Mansfield ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> Can I ask for preprocessed source + options again?
$ cat ~/conftest.c
void bar ();
void clean (int *);
void foo ()
{
int i __attribute__ ((cleanup (clean)));
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can I ask for preprocessed source + options again?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #16 from Ryan Mansfield ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Created attachment 31943 [details]
> gcc49-pr59575.patch
>
> Updated patch, which should now handle the dummy pushes also in
> arm_unwind_emit_sequence. Untes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31934|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Oh, one more thing, supposedly I could have left the thumb2_emit_strd_push and
arm_emit_strd_push functions unmodified, because the addition of extra low
registers to live_reg_mask is guarded with optimize_si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Ryan Mansfield from comment #12)
> /home/ryan/gnu/gcc/trunk/arm-eabi/./gcc/xgcc
> -B/home/ryan/gnu/gcc/trunk/arm-eabi/./gcc/
> -B/home/ryan/x-tools/arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi/arm-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #12 from Ryan Mansfield ---
/home/ryan/gnu/gcc/trunk/arm-eabi/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/ryan/gnu/gcc/trunk/arm-eabi/./gcc/
-B/home/ryan/x-tools/arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi/arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi/bin/
-B/home/ryan/x-tools/arm-unknown-linux-gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #11 from Ryan Mansfield ---
Created attachment 31937
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31937&action=edit
preprocessed src
Configured with: ../configure --target=arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi
--prefix=/home/ryan/x-tools/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Ryan Mansfield from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 31934 [details]
> > gcc49-pr59575.patch
> >
> > Untested fix. Can somebody please test it?
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #9 from Ryan Mansfield ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 31934 [details]
> gcc49-pr59575.patch
>
> Untested fix. Can somebody please test it?
The attached patch fixes the original ICE but introduce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, it seems like the code can push up to 8 of the dummy regs and 4 of
them are call saved (but they can be just unused in the function and thus still
saved as dummy regs and not restored in the epilogue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31934
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31934&action=edit
gcc49-pr59575.patch
Untested fix. Can somebody please test it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am testing:
Index: combine-stack-adj.c
===
--- combine-stack-adj.c (revision 206233)
+++ combine-stack-adj.c (working copy)
@@ -567,6 +568,7 @@ c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, sched2 reorders:
(insn 762 761 765 50 (set (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
(const_int 112 [0x70])) [17 MEM[(struct *)&bs + 8B]+0 S4 A64])
(const_int 8 [0x8])) ../../../../libgo/go
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
First block is:
(insn:TI 551 2434 552 38 (set (mem/f/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
(const_int 104 [0x68])) [17 MEM[(struct *)&bs]+0 S4 A64])
(reg/f:SI 6 bp [orig:159 bs ] [159]))
../../
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
36 matches
Mail list logo
