--- Comment #21 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-16 09:02
---
Subject: Bug 24823
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Dec 16 09:02:49 2005
New Revision: 108631
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108631
Log:
2005-12-16 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #22 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-16 09:09
---
Subject: Bug 24823
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Dec 16 09:09:37 2005
New Revision: 108632
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=108632
Log:
2005-12-16 Andreas Krebbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #23 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-16 09:18
---
Fixed.
--
krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 18:16 ---
I've tested this patch on amd64-*-freebsd. It cures my
gfortran failures. Who do we need to ping to get this
approved?
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-09 18:45
---
I'll ping gcc-patches.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-05 07:57
---
(In reply to comment #17)
Oh, and another case where we can get the parallel is for returning 128bit
structs on x86_64.
I've posted a patch on Nov 28th which should handle these cases correctly:
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-02 21:53
---
Oh, and another case where we can get the parallel is for returning 128bit
structs on x86_64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24823
--- Comment #11 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 09:29
---
Ok, knowing that this may only happen if the return value
of a function has a complex type a trivial fix could look
like this:
Index: gcc/flow.c
===
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 15:16
---
(In reply to comment #11)
Could somebody with an Intel 64bit system try to bootstrap this?
I don't have an Intel 64bit machine, but I can do a bootstrap on a x86_64
machine with this patch.
--
--- Comment #13 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 16:07
---
I don't have an Intel 64bit machine, but I can do a bootstrap on a x86_64
machine with this patch.
Ups. That's what I was trying to suggest - an unusual typo isn't it? ;-)
Thanks for taking care of this!
--
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 16:19
---
(In reply to comment #13)
Ups. That's what I was trying to suggest - an unusual typo isn't it? ;-)
Thanks for taking care of this!
Actually I was wrong in saying that only complex modes can show up here. It
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 16:22
---
(In reply to comment #14)
The testcase to get that construct is:
Compiling with -mpowerpc64 to get the mixed mode. I would not doubt that the
arm failure is a similar issue but not with complex types.
--
--- Comment #16 from krebbel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 17:36
---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
The testcase to get that construct is:
Compiling with -mpowerpc64 to get the mixed mode. I would not doubt that the
arm failure is a similar issue but not
13 matches
Mail list logo
