Simulator testing for sh and sh64

Thomas Schwinge thomas@codesourcery.com
Fri Feb 24 23:40:00 GMT 2012


Hi!

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:08:00 +0900, Kaz Kojima <kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp> wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> >     /scratch/tschwing/FM_sh64-elf/src/gcc-mainline/libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__powisf2':
> >     /scratch/tschwing/FM_sh64-elf/src/gcc-mainline/libgcc/libgcc2.c:1779:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
> >     (insn 10 9 11 3 (set (reg:SI 162 [ D.2769 ])
> >             (abs:SI (reg/v:SI 168 [ m ]))) /scratch/tschwing/FM_sh64-elf/src/gcc-mainline/libgcc/libgcc2.c:1770 -1
> >          (nil))
> >     /scratch/tschwing/FM_sh64-elf/src/gcc-mainline/libgcc/libgcc2.c:1779:1: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123
> 
> BTW, I have a patch below which restores sh64-elf build on trunk.
> The hunks for sh_dwarf_register_span and abssi2 are almost obvious.
> Those for sh_register_move_cost and CASE_USE_BIT_TESTS would be
> suspicious, though.
> 
> Regards,
> 	kaz
> --
> diff -up ORIG/trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.c trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.c
> --- ORIG/trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.c	2011-12-30 09:22:01.000000000 +0900
> +++ trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.c	2012-02-23 21:23:44.000000000 +0900

Confirming that this patch makes GCC trunk buildable again.

Comparing to the 4.6 testsuite results, with trunk there are about 700
new execution failures in g++, gcc, libstdc++, about 100 ``compilation
failed to produce executable'' in g++, there is ``FAIL:
gcc.target/sh/pr21255-2-ml.c scan-assembler mov @\\(4,r.\\),r.; mov
@r.,r.'', ``FAIL: gcc.target/sh/pr49468-si.c scan-assembler-times neg
2'', several tests took a suspiciously long time to compile (with 0 % CPU
usage) so that I killed the GCC processes, and about 12 GCC ICEs.


Grüße,
 Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20120224/d83d9c91/attachment.sig>


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list