--- Comment #15 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 12:08 ---
Subject: Bug 27390
Author: bonzini
Date: Wed Jun 7 12:07:24 2006
New Revision: 114462
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114462
Log:
2006-06-07 Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR target/27390
--- Comment #16 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-07 12:08 ---
fixed.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #14 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-06 12:10 ---
Patch pr27390-more.patch was bootstrapped/regtested and the approach was
confirmed to be ok by Roger.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390
--- Comment #10 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-05 07:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=11594)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11594action=view)
a different attempt
I don't like this patch, as I think it is based on too many assumptions. The
idea is to assume
--- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-05 10:37 ---
When regstack is involved, Sayle is probably the only one who can fix it for
real.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-05 11:37
---
Better. The failure is fixed and no other ones appear, so, bootstrapped and
regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu for all lanugages including Ada.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390
--- Comment #13 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-06-05 17:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=11597)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11597action=view)
and a third one
If this one works, I'd very much prefer it to the one I posted this morning.
It fixes the testcase.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390
--- Comment #7 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-05-29 07:24 ---
The problem is that regstack is wrong when it comes to handling
COMPLEX_FLOAT_MODEs.
To handle clobbers, it calls move_nan_to_stack_reg twice on the same insn. But
the second call does *not* add a new insn, so we get only
--- Comment #8 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-05-29 09:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=11527)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11527action=view)
patch to fix the bug
I would appreciate testing this patch on x86_64, also because it touches some
squeaky code that
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-29 16:26 ---
It doesn't seem to fix the testcases:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/complex-6.c execution, -O0
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/complex-6.c execution, -O1
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/complex-6.c execution, -O2
FAIL:
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-05-26 07:46 ---
There are indeed differences in the generated code.
aj_f_times2 is equal without and with the patch.
aj_d_times2 has this (left = old, right = patched):
movsd %xmm0, -40(%rbp) | movsd %xmm0,
--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2006-05-22 07:24 ---
Hi richi, may I ask why I was added to the CC? Did I cause this bug? :-P
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27390
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-22 07:31 ---
It was caused by:
2006-04-03 Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dale Johannesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR target/19653
* regclass.c (struct reg_pref): Update documentation.
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2006-05-22
07:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] gcc.target/x86_64/abi/test_complex_returning.c
execution fails at -O0
It was mentioned in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00390.html
Also.
And nothing
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:02 ---
The same:
FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/scalar-return-3 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o execute
FAIL: gcc.target/x86_64/abi/test_complex_returning.c execution, -O0
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 15:02 ---
gcc.target/x86_64/abi/test_complex_returning.c execution fails at -O0
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
17 matches
Mail list logo
