--- Comment #17 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-07
15:49 ---
Subject: Bug 27386
Author: hutchinsonandy
Date: Sat Jun 7 15:48:25 2008
New Revision: 136531
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=136531
Log:
Backports from 4.4
PR target/27386
*
--- Comment #15 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-04
22:03 ---
Subject: Bug 27386
Author: hutchinsonandy
Date: Wed Jun 4 22:02:57 2008
New Revision: 136377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=136377
Log:
PR target/27386
* config/avr/avr.h:
--- Comment #16 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-04
22:06 ---
Fixed 4.4
--
hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from hutchinsonandy at aim dot com 2008-06-01 15:22 ---
It appears emit_single_push_insn() is BROKEN for targets with:
a)STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARDS+POST_DEC push
b)Upwards+POST_INC push.
So if any target has this combo and #define PUSH_ROUNDING - it is broken.
Fortunately
--- Comment #13 from hutchinsonandy at aim dot com 2008-06-01 02:40 ---
expr.c appears all messed up on emit_single_push_insn.
This bad code gets executed when there is no push instruction available.
As well as getting address of the mem created completely wrong, it does not
account
--- Comment #10 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 20:09
---
Test case fails for 4.3-20070525.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 20:29
---
*** Bug 21834 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from rask at sygehus dot dk 2007-05-30 21:29 ---
The AVR is unusual in having
#define STACK_PUSH_CODE POST_DEC
#define STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARD
where most targets would have PRE_DEC when the stack grows downward. The
middle-end tries to synthesize the missing pushdi
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #9 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-02-13 19:12
---
5 months later and this bug still needs to be marked as NEW. Will a bug master
please do this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386
--- Comment #8 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2006-09-01 21:44
---
Bugmasters: Please mark this bug as NEW. It is a valid bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386
--- Comment #1 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 12:54
---
Created an attachment (id=11358)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11358action=view)
Testcase demonstrating the faulty code generated.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386
--- Comment #2 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 12:57
---
Created an attachment (id=11359)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11359action=view)
Faulty code generated by test case.
The faulty code is in lines 136...160.
First, 8 bytes of space are
--- Comment #3 from berndtrog at yahoo dot com 2006-05-02 15:19 ---
Is this one related to PR21834?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386
--- Comment #4 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 15:25
---
(In reply to comment #3)
Is this one related to PR21834?
Possible, yes. The symptoms are similar. Sorry for missing that
one at my prior search.
Anyway, my report has a preprocessed source file attached,
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27386
--- Comment #5 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 15:33
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Is this one related to PR21834?
Anyway, my report has a preprocessed source file attached, so it
might be more useful to non-AVR aware GCC developers.
Perhaps Richard (Cc'ed) can
--- Comment #6 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 15:34
---
(Sorry, I hit enter a bit too fast.)
--
j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-05-02 15:37
---
Forwarding this comment on behalf of Bjoern Haase:
Preliminary analysis of the RTL generated without optimization shows that
the problem is present already directly after expand. Maybe the problem
is triggered
19 matches
Mail list logo
