This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/62254] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc-4.9 ICEs on linux kernel zlib for armv3
- From: "ramana at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 08:47:40 +0000
- Subject: [Bug target/62254] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc-4.9 ICEs on linux kernel zlib for armv3
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-62254-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #21 from Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #19)
> (In reply to Julien Margetts from comment #17)
> > The following test case still fails with the patch applied (originally bug
> > 70362)
> >
> > arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv3m -c -o c_compat_x_tst.o
> > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-4_x.c
>
>
> I cannot reproduce this failure. Ie when I compile this test case
> everything works, at -O0 all the way up to -O3.
>
> This is with today's mainline sources, which has *both* of the patches from
> this PR applied. These sources no longer contain this assertion:
>
> gcc_assert (REG_P (operands[0]));
>
> although they do contain:
>
> gcc_assert (REG_P (outval) || SUBREG_P (outval));
>
>
> If the problem really does exist, could someone tell me what outval looks
> like when the assertion is triggered ?
I can't seem to make this fire on trunk anymore and it does look like I was
using a stale build. Sorry about the noise on trunk.
Ramana
>
> Cheers
> Nick