This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: HAVE_ATTR_enabled mishandling?

From: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
To: Chung-Ju Wu <jasonwucj at gmail dot com>
Cc: David Given <dg at cowlark dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:47:40 -0400
Subject: Re: HAVE_ATTR_enabled mishandling?
References: <51DC85D4 dot 10206 at cowlark dot com> <5208FB85 dot 1040109 at gmail dot com>

On 13-08-12 11:13 AM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:

Hi, Vladimir,

Apparently the issue that David mentioned has already been fixed earlier:
   http://gcc.gnu.org/r198344

2013-04-26  Vladimir Makarov  <vmakarov@redhat.com>

	...
	* lra-constraints.c (curr_insn_set): New.
	...
	(process_alt_operands): Use it.  Use #if HAVE_ATTR_enabled instead
	of #ifdef.  Add code to remove cycling.
	...

However, such change is only applied on trunk but not on 4.8 branch.
Since 4.8 branch is still open and this issue seems to be a bug,
perhaps it is a good idea to backport this part.

What do you think? :)

I guess it is worth to do.  It should be safe so no any objections for this.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: HAVE_ATTR_enabled mishandling?
  - From: Chung-Ju Wu

References:
- Re: HAVE_ATTR_enabled mishandling?
  - From: Chung-Ju Wu

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]