This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH][ARM] Fix PR 56809
- From: "Kyrylo Tkachov" <kyrylo dot tkachov at arm dot com>
- To: <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: "Richard Earnshaw" <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>, "'Jakub Jelinek'" <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:53:13 +0100
- Subject: RE: [PATCH][ARM] Fix PR 56809
- References: <019a01ce307c$ff897700$fe9c6500$ at email@example.com> <515C47A3 dot 2030906 at arm dot com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Sent: 03 April 2013 16:16
> To: Kyrylo Tkachov
> Cc: GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix PR 56809
> On 04/03/13 16:07, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > This patch fixes an ICE that we encounter when building gcc on arm
> > The jump table reorganisation exposed a bug in the backend.
> > This fixes it
> > by using next_active_insn instead of next_real_insn when looking for
> > diff vector in the jump table handling code. (Thanks to Steven
> Bosscher for
> > the tip).
> > A separate aarch64 patch is coming soon separately.
> > Tested arm-none-eabi on qemu and confirmed that the build for
> > arm-none-linux-gnueabi is fixed.
> > Since the PR affects both arm and aarch64 I put a testcase into
> > Ok for trunk?
> Ok for trunk.
Given that this fixes a latent bug, is it ok to backport to 4.8 and 4.7?
Tested the patch on those branches with no regressions on arm-none-eabi.