This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
Jim Wilson <wilson@specifixinc.com> writes:
> My latest bootstrap succeeded. I didn't run the testsuite, and I still
> had some debug code in there just to be safe, but I don't think either
> of those issues should matter. With the following patch on top of your
> patches, the IA-64 gcc port bootstrap again including Ada. This patch
> adds the REG_INC notes for auto-inc addresses in the IN operands. There
> is also the potential problem I pointed out earlier where we use INTVAL
> without checking to see if we have a CONST_INT. That isn't in this
> patch, but I think it should go in also.
Okay. I have incorporated your changes into my patch, added the
CONST_INT check, and am running a bootstrap on ia64-hpux; if it
succeeds I'll repost the combined patch.
[...]
> So what I am asking here is that if you check in a patch that
> breaks the IA-64 compiler, and you are not able to solve the problem
> yourself, that you revert the patch until I am able to help you. I am
> willing to help you with these kinds of things, but it isn't fair to
> others to let you monopolize my time, and it isn't fair to others to
> leave the IA-64 compiler broken for long periods of time.
I am willing to do this for most breaks.
However, it is my understanding that breaks that affect only Ada are
*not* considered critical, and in fact that there is no obligation for
anyone to attempt to build the Ada front end. I normally do not
bother building it even on platforms that can handle it (ia64-hpux
cannot, as the runtime has not been ported). This is why I did not
respond very fast to this bug report. I am willing to change my
habits if the policy has changed, but not otherwise.
> If you want to be really helpful, you could try looking at some of the
> IA-64 gcc bug reports in bugzilla. PR 7198 is on my list, and is one
> that you could handle.
Sure, I'll look at that.
zw