This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: bootstrap/6225: [x86 x sh-elf] reload1.c failure
- From: tm <tm at mail dot kloo dot net>
- To: bangerth at dealii dot org, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,gniibe at m17n dot org, jh at suse dot cz, nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org, tm at kloo dot net,gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:45:21 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: bootstrap/6225: [x86 x sh-elf] reload1.c failure
On 21 Nov 2002 bangerth@dealii.org wrote:
> Old Synopsis: reload1.c failure for sh-elf. Bootstrap failure on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu
> New Synopsis: [x86 x sh-elf] reload1.c failure
>
> State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
> State-Changed-By: bangerth
> State-Changed-When: Wed Nov 20 18:08:49 2002
> State-Changed-Why:
> This is a rather old bootstrap failure. Can you please check
> whether this still happens with newer versions of gcc and
> report back to us what you find?
>
> Has the patch you mention in your report been applied in
> the meantime?
>
> Thanks
> Wolfgang
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6225
>
I've tested the testcase against CVS head, specifically:
gcc version 3.3 20021119 (experimental)
and the resultant output code compiled with -O2 seems correct:
.L232:
.loc 1 288 0
mov #64,r6
add r14,r6
mov.l @(12,r6),r0
mov.l @(8,r6),r6
sub r6,r0
mov #64,r6
add r14,r6
mov.l r0,@(8,r6) <- r14 + 64 + 8 = r14 + 72 = correct
This seems ok to close.
Toshi