This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug rtl-optimization/47166] [4.5 Regression] SpecCpu2000 Ammp segfaults for ARM with -O3 -mthumb
- From: "ramana at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 01:16:29 +0000
- Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/47166] [4.5 Regression] SpecCpu2000 Ammp segfaults for ARM with -O3 -mthumb
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-47166-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47166
Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25 from Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-01 01:16:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> > I don't see how this makes any sense. We've identified two bugs in reload, both
> > leading to incorrect code, and you'd rather revert the fix for one than fix
> > both?
>
> Yes, because the first one wasn't a regression and fixing the second may well
> cause a third to pop up, you never know with reload. This is called RM...
I am curious to know what we are doing with this ?.
The patch for PR41085 caused this regression for ARM with the 4.5 branch and
this fix is to fix the issue exposed by the fix for PR41085. Are we going to
revert the fix for PR41085 or are we going to backport the current fix for this
?
Thanks
Ramana