This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Bug target/12371] [3.4 regression] [m68k-linux] bootstrap errorin make compare
- From: Bernardo Innocenti <bernie at develer dot com>
- To: Matthias Klose <doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 22:03:06 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Bug target/12371] [3.4 regression] [m68k-linux] bootstrap errorin make compare
- Organization: Develer S.r.l.
- References: <20030922212350.12371.debian-gcc@lists.debian.org> <20031031212109.27938.qmail@sources.redhat.com> <16291.32524.371417.139160@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Matthias Klose wrote:
bernie at develer dot com writes:
I've re-read both patches and they seem rather safe, but...
is it possible that the objects produced during stage3 aren't
really ELF files?
I attach two files. maybe you could get something out of it? I further
try to tighten the period, where I see the failure occur.
The two objects actually _do_ contain different assembly
code. Both have been generated by the very same version
of GCC.
The first few functions are identical, then a very long
one (gt_pch_pa_reg_base_value) has very different
register allocation.
Is it possible that different optimization options were
used in stage2?
alias.s (GCC: (GNU) 3.4 20031030 (experimental))
[...]
0000013a <gt_pch_pa_reg_base_value>:
13a: 4e56 0000 linkw %fp,#0
13e: 48e7 3c20 moveml %d2-%d5/%a2,%sp@-
142: 41ee 0008 lea %fp@(8),%a0 <-!!!
146: 2810 movel %a0@,%d4
148: 2468 0008 moveal %a0@(8),%a2
14c: 2a2e 0014 movel %fp@(20),%d5
[...]
stage2/alias.s (GCC: (GNU) 3.4 20031030 (experimental))
[...]
0000013a <gt_pch_pa_reg_base_value>:
13a: 4e56 0000 linkw %fp,#0
13e: 48e7 3c20 moveml %d2-%d5/%a2,%sp@-
142: 282e 0008 movel %fp@(8),%d4 <-!!!
146: 246e 0010 moveal %fp@(16),%a2
14a: 2a2e 0014 movel %fp@(20),%d5
[...]
--
// Bernardo Innocenti - Develer S.r.l., R&D dept.
\X/ http://www.develer.com/
Please don't send Word attachments - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html