http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-28 07:59:59 UTC ---
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, abel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
>
> --- Comment #18 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-03-27
> 14:08:2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #18 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-03-27
14:08:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Looks reasonable. Though I think that whoever removed the fallthru
> edge should have adjusted the flags on the others.
That's simply delete_basic_bl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-27 13:50:57 UTC ---
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, abel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
>
> --- Comment #16 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-03-27
> 13:28:0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #16 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-03-27
13:28:03 UTC ---
So, something like the below patch, or even better -- as we want to fold all
RTL-build related pseudo passes into expand, make pass_instantiate_virtual_regs
also the expand part
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #15 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-03-27
13:06:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > It's failing not only on sh, but on x86-64 too, started with (no surprise
> > here)
> > r185564: ...
>
> Is it related
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-03-27 13:02:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> It's failing not only on sh, but on x86-64 too, started with (no surprise
> here)
> r185564: ...
Is it related to pr52650?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #10 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-02-09
10:17:59 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Feb 9 10:17:55 2012
New Revision: 184040
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184040
Log:
2012-02-09 Andrey Belevantsev
Back
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #9 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-02-09
10:10:41 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Thu Feb 9 10:10:36 2012
New Revision: 184038
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184038
Log:
2012-02-09 Andrey Belevantsev
Backp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-06
12:26:48 UTC ---
Yes, it is ok for the affected branches if bootstrap/regtest passes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #7 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-02-06
12:10:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Can this be applied to 4.5/4.6 please?
Well, the patch was approved for trunk only, but it is committed for two weeks
now and looks safe -- Jakub?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
Ryan Hill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dirtyepic at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #6 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.
15 matches
Mail list logo
