This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: register renaming causes many ARM testsuite failures
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: register renaming causes many ARM testsuite failures
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:37:08 -0700
- cc: Philip Blundell <philb at gnu dot org>, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Reply-To: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101021721550.24769-100000@host140.cambridge.redhat
.com>you write:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Philip Blundell wrote:
>
> > Many test cases are failing to compile at -O3 using the trunk sources on
> ARM
> > targets, with errors like this:
> >
> > /tmp/cc4c42x1.s: Assembler messages:
> > /tmp/cc4c42x1.s:21: Error: Bad range in register list
> > /tmp/cc4c42x1.s:23: Error: Bad range in register list
> > /tmp/cc4c42x1.s:24: Error: Bad range in register list
> > /tmp/cc4c42x1.s:25: Error: Bad range in register list
> > /tmp/cc4c42x1.s:28: Error: Bad range in register list
> > /tmp/cc4c42x1.s:31: Error: Bad range in register list
> > /tmp/cc4c42x1.s:57: Error: Bad range in register list
> > /tmp/cc4c42x1.s:59: Error: Bad range in register list
> > /tmp/cc4c42x1.s:60: Error: Bad range in register list
> > /tmp/cc4c42x1.s:61: Error: Bad range in register list
> >
> > The problem is that an insn like this matches the special `load multiple'
> > pattern which generates an LDM instruction:
>
> Apparently the constraints on the ldmsi patterns aren't strict enough.
Actually, I would think it would be the operand predicates or the insn's
condition, not the constraints.
jeff