[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 --- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-01 14:29:51 UTC --- Author: uros Date: Sat Sep 1 14:29:45 2012 New Revision: 190847 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190847 Log: PR target/46829 PR target/46843

[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 --- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com 2010-12-10 15:45:33 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) (In reply to comment #5) It should work for x86_64, not necessarily i?86. Do you mean -fsched-pressure should be able to

[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 Changpeng Fang changpeng.fang at amd dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at

[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-07 11:21:45 UTC --- It should work for x86_64, not necessarily i?86.

[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 --- Comment #6 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-12-07 17:34:01 UTC --- Created attachment 22674 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22674 different testcase A bit different testcase $ gcc -O -fschedule-insns

[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 --- Comment #7 from Changpeng Fang changpeng.fang at amd dot com 2010-12-07 22:42:26 UTC --- If you compile with dispatch scheduling enabled (together with -march=bdver1), both test cases attached PASS. gcc -O2 -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure

[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-07 23:54:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) If you compile with dispatch scheduling enabled (together with -march=bdver1), both test cases attached PASS. gcc -O2

[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 --- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-12-06 22:17:44 UTC --- This ICE is quite unlucky, it happened in 3rd package I tried to compile - now I have compiled 70 packages since then, and this is still the only occurence.

[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 Changpeng Fang changpeng.fang at amd dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/46829] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2105 with -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure and variadic function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-06 22:52:04 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) Actually, I have opened bug 46793 last week, and it seems to be the same bug. Bug 46793 has been marked as WONTFIX. No, it isn't.