This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@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]

[Bug middle-end/50283] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/eh/simd-1.C execution test


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283

vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |vries at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #15 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-10 11:31:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> You don't.  We're supposed to prevent frame-related insns
> from appearing in branch delay slots.

Richard,

do you mean this in general, or just for calls?

Either way, we should be able to formulate an assert in scan_trace that checks
this condition. Do you think that would be useful?

Thanks,
- Tom


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