This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC: Patch, PR 60102] [4.9/4.10 Regression] powerpc fp-bit ices at dwf_regno
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: <rohitarulraj at freescale dot com>, Edmar Wienskoski <edmar at freescale dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:47:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC: Patch, PR 60102] [4.9/4.10 Regression] powerpc fp-bit ices at dwf_regno
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <201410091336 dot s99Dau4d027603 at d06av02 dot portsmouth dot uk dot ibm dot com>
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > The patch works for me.
> > Tested with GCC v4.9 branch rev 216036 and GCC trunk rev 216027.
>
> Thanks for testing! Can you work with Maciej to find out why he's
> seeing different results?
Seeing Rohit got good results it has struck me that perhaps one of the
patches I had previously reverted, to be able to compile GCC in the first
place, interfered with this fix -- I backed out all the subsequent patches
to test yours and Rohit's by themselves only. And it was actually the
case, with this change:
2013-05-21 Christian Bruel <christian.bruel@st.com>
* dwarf2out.c (multiple_reg_loc_descriptor): Use dbx_reg_number for
spanning registers. LEAF_REG_REMAP is supported only for contiguous
registers. Set register size out of the PARALLEL loop.
back in place, in addition to your fix, I get an all-passed score for
gdb.base/store.exp. So your change looks good and my decision to back out
the other patches unfortunate. I'll yet run full e500v2 testing now to
double check, and let you know what the results are, within a couple of
hours if things work well.
Testing with my other multilibs will have to wait a few days as our Power
board farm is currently in maintenance and some are offline. Given this
situation and that you both already tested some other multilibs I think
there is little point in waiting for my full results. If anything pops up
there, then it can be addressed later on.
Thanks for your effort and sorry about the confusion with testing.
Maciej