This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR83969: ICE in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2997
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Arseny Solokha <asolokha at gmx dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 17:40:35 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR83969: ICE in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2997
- References: <a90d0b0e-c605-747e-1a47-572a59fb2977@vnet.ibm.com> <20180309193107.GX21977@gate.crashing.org> <df219d77-c63c-08ec-dbce-0d5d1944d78c@vnet.ibm.com> <9b44e339-ffa2-dc9d-c512-631f0b6c6a83@vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:23:51PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 3/9/18 4:25 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > On 3/9/18 1:31 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 06:50:41PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> >>> This passed bootstrap and regtesting on powerpc64-linux, running the
> >>> testsuite in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes with no regressions.
> >>> Ok for trunk?
> >>
> >> Sorry this took a while to review. It is okay for trunk. Does this
> >> need backports?
> >
> > Technically, it is broken there too, but until trunk, we never really
> > generated the altivec mems that trigger this bug, so I think I would
> > lean towards just having this on trunk and if someone, somehow hits
> > it, then we can back port it then.
>
> So as we talked offline, the go test case in PR85436 is fixed by this
> patch, so I have back ported it and am bootstrapping and regtesting it.
> Is it ok for GCC 7 if the testing comes back clean?
Certainly, thanks. Is it needed for GCC 6 as well? Okay for that too,
if so.
Segher