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: wrong assertion in caller-save.c


Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> writes:
> On 01/10/14 14:44, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> In my backend movdi pattern has unfortunately code '0' (depends on pattern
>>> declaration order). When gcc tried to determine if my DI regs can be saved
>>> and restore as 'caller saves' (in caller-save.c::init_caller_save()) it
>>> failed on this wrong assertion.
>>
>> I'd arrange for avoiding code 0 instead because this disables the cache.
> Agreed, but the assert in caller-save is still wrong and ought to be fixed.

FWIW, it was fixed in 4.8 and later by making CODE_FOR_nothing be 0
and starting the real instructions at 1.

Thanks,
Richard


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