This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH][4.8 backport] Fix PR57735
- From: "Kyrylo Tkachov" <kyrylo dot tkachov at arm dot com>
- To: "'Richard Sandiford'" <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <mikpe at it dot uu dot se>, "'Richard Biener'" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:17:46 +0100
- Subject: RE: [PATCH][4.8 backport] Fix PR57735
- References: <51ed5d91 dot c353b40a dot 3caf dot 01fbSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN at mx dot google dot com> <871u6qwi28 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <87wqoiv3cf dot fsf at talisman dot default> <021001ce8784$44337960$cc9a6c20$ at email@example.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> email@example.com] On Behalf Of Kyrylo Tkachov
> Sent: 23 July 2013 10:09
> To: 'Richard Sandiford'
> Cc: gcc-patches; firstname.lastname@example.org; 'Richard Biener'
> Subject: RE: [PATCH][4.8 backport] Fix PR57735
> Hi Richard,
> > Richard Sandiford <email@example.com> writes:
> > > "Kyrylo Tkachov" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> The fix for PR57735 is in current trunk (for a different issue I
> > think), just
> > >> needs a backport to 4.8.
> > >> It is r198462 by Richard Sandiford:
> > >>
> > >> 2013-04-30 Richard Sandiford <email@example.com>
> > >>
> > >> * explow.c (plus_constant): Pass "mode" to
> > >> Use gen_int_mode rather than GEN_INT.
> > >>
> > >> Ok to backport to the 4.8 branch?
> > >
> > > Sorry for dropping the ball. It's already been approved for 4.8,
> > > and I think I even remembered to test it ready for commit. I just
> > > never actually hit commit afterwards :-(
> > *sigh*. Scratch that. I'd confused it with:
> > 2013-05-22 Richard Sandiford <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > * recog.c (offsettable_address_addr_space_p): Fix calculation of
> > address mode. Move pointer mode initialization to the same place.
> > which I _did_ apply to 4.8. Sorry about the confusion instead...
> It's ok, didn't have time to act on the confusion anyway :)
> So is the proposed one ok to backport? I've bootstrapped it on
> arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and tested on arm-none-eabi with qemu.