https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Sep 19 09:20:38 2014
New Revision: 215383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-19 Andreas Krebbel
PR target/62662
* config/s390/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Fri Sep 19 09:14:59 2014
New Revision: 215381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-19 Andreas Krebbel
PR target/62662
* config/s390/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 33450
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33450&action=edit
Experimental patch
I'm currently bootstrapping this patch with various combinations. It will take
some time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
I agree that this is something we need to fix in the back-end. I was just
curious about when this surfaced first and keep that info for the records.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is perhaps where we started to have %r11 clobbered in the routine
(therefore pro_and_epilogue wanted to save %r11-%r15), and all the %r11 uses
later disappear because of later passes (I think cprop_hardr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
