This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: A gcc-cris bug?

From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
To: Tal Agmon <tal dot agmon at nsc dot com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, Dave Korn <dk at artimi dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:17:03 +0200
Subject: Re: A gcc-cris bug?
References: <F3EDEA36-1796-11D9-B1A5-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu> <OFF9FAEC2E.EC58952F-ONC1256F25.00476B39-C1256F25.0048CDDD@nsc.com>
Reply-to: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:13:03 +0200, Tal Agmon <tal.agmon@nsc.com> wrote:
> Andrew Pinski wrote:
> 
> > Why it is fixed on the mainline already and for a good reason.  The
> > RTL optimizations were just not good.  The tree level ones is where
> > something like this gets fixed which is what happened, DOM (really
> > only the copy progation part) and copy loop headers fixed the problem.
> > There are many more places where things are fixed on the mainline for
> > 4.0.0 which cannot be back ported to 3.x or 2.x.
> 
> If I understand you right, gcc-3.4.* final version will be releases with
> this
> bug. Do you have a workaround recommended for gcc-3.4.* users?

Put __attribute__((noinline)) on the function f().

Richard.

References:
- Re: A gcc-cris bug?
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: A gcc-cris bug?
  - From: Tal Agmon

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