This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/10274] [HP-PA] ICE in output_cbranch, at config/pa/pa.c:5549
- From: "joel dot soete at tiscali dot be" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 19 Jun 2003 06:10:42 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/10274] [HP-PA] ICE in output_cbranch, at config/pa/pa.c:5549
- References: <20030331100601.10274.joel.soete@tiscali.be>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10274
------- Additional Comments From joel dot soete at tiscali dot be 2003-06-19 06:10 -------
Hi Dara,
Here is the detailed Dave's comment
(<http://lists.parisc-linux.org/pipermail/parisc-linux/2003-June/020191.html>):
"> It is well a stub table pb?
No, this is a gcc pb. Please proceed with a PR. I can see the
problem. There isn't support for long floating-point branches
in the machine definition :(
I would suggest that the code being generated for this
function isn't going to be very good. Whenever at function
exceeds 240KB in size, then GCC needs to generate long branches
for function calls and some internal branches. These sequences
are much longer and less efficient. You can tweak the parameters
of the GCC's inlining model and probably reduce the size of
the generated code. The parameters are settable from the
command line and are documented in the manual, etc.
Dave
--
J. David Anglin dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602)
"
I think so that we can close this PR (original ICE pb) and open another one.
What's your opinion?
Thanks,
Joel