Re: Number of 3.3 hi-pri PRs going up

[Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>]

> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:20:03PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > 
> > Just one week before the planned release of GCC 3.3, the number of
> > high-priority bugs for 3.3 is going *up* instead of down!
> > 
> > Mostly thanks to Wolfgang and Janis, for quite a few PRs the patches
> > causing the bugs have been located.  Unfortunately, hardly any of these
> > PRs were picked up by by somebody for fixing.
> 
> Several other people have been helping out with this lately, too.
> 
> Fortunately, your statement about hardly any of these bugs being fixed
> is not correct; quite a few of them have been fixed, some by the person
> who introduced the regression and some by others.  Here's a summary,
> which is missing recent reports from other people:
> 
>   regressions not yet fixed anywhere (besides the new parser) whose GNATS
>   entries identify the patch that introduced the regression
>   
>   PR     version       reported     submitter    notes
>   
>   8994   3.2/3.3       2002-12-18   jh
I've moved this one into 3.2 only regression.  It is fixed on 3.3 branch
by the regmove cost patches.  Should we try to backport it into 3.2?
>   8964   3.3/3.4       2002-12-23   mark
>   8913   3.3           2002-12-12   jason
>   8906   3.2/3.3/3.4   2002-12-12   jason
>   8828   3.2/3.3       2002-12-24   jakub
>   8808   3.2/3.3       2002-12-18   jh

This is old problem with using registers in ASM statements that are not
possible to use in given context.  I would suggest to suspend this bug
as same crash can be reproduced with different registers too.
I am not sure about proper fix here.  Richard suggested adding new mask
of registers that are available for use, but this would need to work
together with modes and so on, so it is somewhat crazy.
I will try to do something.

>   8730   3.2/3.3       2002-12-24   kenner       intermittent failure
>   8634   3.2/3.3       2002-12-23   jh

Zdene has patch for this one.  Quite nasty bug in addressof ellimination

>   8564   3.2/3.3/3.4   2002-12-12   jason
>   8555   3.2           2002-12-23   jakub
>   8442   3.4           2002-12-14   nathan
>   7916   3.2/3.3/3.4   2002-12-20   jh

This is another latent bug with ASM statements.  The 'l' statement is
unrecognized stmt decides to put memory statement into it.  Later this
fails in virtual registers ellimination.
Not sure what to do about it - I can prohibit virtual registers in the
memory statements but I believe the whole purpose of the hackery is to
allow specially formed memory expressions here.  Otherwise I can simply
prohibit memory reference when unknown constraint is hit.
Not sure how this is supposed to work at all.

Honza