This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH] Fix wrong-code at -O0 with MEM_REF in initializer (PR middle-end/53084)

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:59:08 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix wrong-code at -O0 with MEM_REF in initializer (PR middle-end/53084)
References: <20120423230312.GO16117@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <CAFiYyc1+_QiqFOfhjQwzQ9dEK0=j58zUQeiB=EmpkJoTpBb8qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:56:11AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > output_addressed_constants isn't able to output constants addressed
> > with &MEM_REF<&something, X> and similarly compute_reloc_for_constant
> > doesn't handle it. ?Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and
> > i686-linux, ok for trunk/4.7?
> 
> Isn't this latent in 4.6?

Possibly.  The bug started being reproduceable on this testcase with
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178312
and stopped being reproducible with
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186687

	Jakub

References:
- [PATCH] Fix wrong-code at -O0 with MEM_REF in initializer (PR middle-end/53084)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] Fix wrong-code at -O0 with MEM_REF in initializer (PR middle-end/53084)
  - From: Richard Guenther

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