This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug lto/65778] v8 build fails with assembly error with LTO enabled on arm-linux-gnueabihf


https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65778

Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can't you not use just a move instead of a ldr here?  basically it is the
> assembler which creates the constant pool here and that is too far from the
> where the ldr is located because the function is "huge".

Indeed the compiler has no role here. 

It's not like __ARM_NR_cacheflush is going to change is it ? You can write it
similar to the libgcc implementation for clear_cache.


regards
Ramana


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]