This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917
- From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 18:04:47 +0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-82518-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #25 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Aldy - these easiest thing for now would be to unilaterally relax the
> alignment
> test in Handle_Store_Double and see if that allows you to get further with
> your
> tests.
We're debugging past each other :). I was already doing that, but it only
mildly helps:
pc: 8358, ldm r3, {r0, r1, r2, r3}
pc: 835c, stm ip, {r0, r1, r2, r3}
pc: 8360, sub r3, fp, #40 ; 0x28
pc: 8364, mov r0, r3
pc: 8368, blx 0x0000000000000698
pc changed to 8a00
pc: 8a00, Thumb instr: f890|f000 emulate as: e5d0f000 ldrb pc, [r0]
; <UNPREDICTABLE>
pc changed to a
I'm done mucking around with the simulator. I'll file a GDB/sim PR for the
alignment issue though. Thanks.
>
> (But yes, I agree, a reduced testcase would be a much better help than all
> this
> mucking about in the simulator).
Yes please. Cristophe?