--- Comment #11 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-05 22:44 ---
Subject: Bug 26223
Author: sayle
Date: Mon Jun 5 22:44:46 2006
New Revision: 114415
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114415
Log:
PR target/26223
* config/i386/i386.c (construct
--- Comment #10 from sayle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 04:28 ---
Subject: Bug 26223
Author: sayle
Date: Sun Jun 4 04:28:25 2006
New Revision: 114355
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114355
Log:
PR target/26223
* config/i386/i386.c (construct
--- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-25 02:33
---
Will not be fixed in 4.1.1; adjust target milestone to 4.1.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-24 00:26
---
This issue will not be resolved in GCC 4.1.0; retargeted at GCC 4.1.1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-18 06:50
---
This is too obscure to be a P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 19:58 ---
Ignore my comment #5, I mis-grep-ed the insn uids :-/
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26223
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 19:51 ---
Silly question maybe, but why is reg-stack doing anything at all if -mno-80387?
Before reg-stack we have,
(insn 26 12 27 3 (set (mem/c:XF (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 6 bp)
(const_int -16 [0xfff0]
--- Comment #4 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-02-16 15:32 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I don't know if this is really valid code as long double on x86_64 uses 387 so
> turning off 387 explicitly says no 387 instructions. In fact I think the
> regression was caused by actually -mno-38
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 15:12 ---
I don't know if this is really valid code as long double on x86_64 uses 387 so
turning off 387 explicitly says no 387 instructions. In fact I think the
regression was caused by actually -mno-387 working correctly in
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 14:12
---
Confirmed.
Even simpler testcase (crashes with "gcc -mno-80387"):
===
long double foo(long double x) { return x; }
===
--
10 matches
Mail list logo
