This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.0.3 Prelease problem on --target=m68k-elf
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: pbarada at mail dot wm dot sps dot mot dot com (Peter Barada)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:38:36 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.0.3 Prelease problem on --target=m68k-elf
Peter Barada writes:
> gcc-3.0.3-20011213 builds with the following config.status:
> #!/bin/sh
> # This file was generated automatically by configure. Do not edit.
> # This directory was configured as follows:
> /home/pbarada/work/cvs-wavemark/cross-linux-tools/gcc-3.0.3-20011213/configure --with-gcc-version-trigger=/home/pbarada/work/cvs-wavemark/cross-linux-tools/gcc-3.0.3-20011213/gcc/version.c --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --target=m68k-elf --prefix=/tmp/crap5 --enable-languages=c --with-local-prefix=/tmp/crap5/m68k-elf --without-headers --with-newlib --disable-shared --norecursion
> #
> Unfortunately it doesn't produce correct code for -m5200 due to the
> "r" constraint in the following pattern in gcc/config/m68k/m68k.md:
>
> ;; Jump to variable address from dispatch table of relative addresses.
> (define_insn ""
> [(set (pc)
> (plus:SI (pc)
> (sign_extend:SI (match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand" "r"))))
> (use (label_ref (match_operand 1 "" "")))]
> ""
Is this a regression with respect to 3.0.2, or 2.95.3?
Either way, it seems the thing to do is to file a bug report with GNATS
including a test case for which bad code generation occurs.