* [Bug middle-end/10540] [3.3 regression] mips-sgi-irix6.5 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c with checking enabled
[not found] <20030429143602.10540.ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
@ 2003-05-27 0:29 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-05-27 13:30 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi@yahoo.com @ 2003-05-27 0:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10540
------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com 2003-05-26 23:57 -------
Hello,
with gcc 3.2.3, 3.3 branch and mainline, the testcase builds fine for me with a mips-sgi-irix6.5
cross-compiler, though I don't have checking enabled. Does this problem still occur for you? Does
it only occur when checking is enabled? Thanks,
Dara
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/10540] [3.3 regression] mips-sgi-irix6.5 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c with checking enabled
[not found] <20030429143602.10540.ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
2003-05-27 0:29 ` [Bug middle-end/10540] [3.3 regression] mips-sgi-irix6.5 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c with checking enabled dhazeghi@yahoo.com
@ 2003-05-27 13:30 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-06-09 5:47 ` ghazi@gcc.gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: pinskia@physics.uc.edu @ 2003-05-27 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10540
pinskia@physics.uc.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
------- Additional Comments From pinskia@physics.uc.edu 2003-05-27 13:25 -------
See Dara's question (comment 1).
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/10540] [3.3 regression] mips-sgi-irix6.5 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c with checking enabled
[not found] <20030429143602.10540.ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
2003-05-27 0:29 ` [Bug middle-end/10540] [3.3 regression] mips-sgi-irix6.5 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c with checking enabled dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-05-27 13:30 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
@ 2003-06-09 5:47 ` ghazi@gcc.gnu.org
2003-06-09 5:49 ` ghazi@gcc.gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: ghazi@gcc.gnu.org @ 2003-06-09 5:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10540
ghazi@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2003-06-09 05:47:19
date| |
------- Additional Comments From ghazi@gcc.gnu.org 2003-06-09 05:47 -------
Yes checking is required to trigger the bug and it still occurs, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-06/msg00483.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/10540] [3.3 regression] mips-sgi-irix6.5 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c with checking enabled
[not found] <20030429143602.10540.ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-09 5:47 ` ghazi@gcc.gnu.org
@ 2003-06-09 5:49 ` ghazi@gcc.gnu.org
2003-06-11 22:18 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: ghazi@gcc.gnu.org @ 2003-06-09 5:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10540
ghazi@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|2003-06-09 05:48:03 |2003-06-09 05:49:57
date| |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/10540] [3.3 regression] mips-sgi-irix6.5 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c with checking enabled
[not found] <20030429143602.10540.ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-09 5:49 ` ghazi@gcc.gnu.org
@ 2003-06-11 22:18 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-07-17 20:36 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: pinskia@physics.uc.edu @ 2003-06-11 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10540
pinskia@physics.uc.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |3.3.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/10540] [3.3 regression] mips-sgi-irix6.5 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c with checking enabled
[not found] <20030429143602.10540.ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-11 22:18 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
@ 2003-07-17 20:36 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-07-23 23:05 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-07-28 21:08 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-07-17 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10540
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-17 20:36 -------
The crash occurs on this code in subreg_hard_regno:
#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
if (!subreg_offset_representable_p (REGNO (reg), GET_MODE (reg),
SUBREG_BYTE (x), mode))
abort ();
#endif
The expression in question is:
(subreg:SF (reg:DI 3 v1) 0)
Is that supposed to be valid?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/10540] [3.3 regression] mips-sgi-irix6.5 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c with checking enabled
[not found] <20030429143602.10540.ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-17 20:36 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-07-23 23:05 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-07-28 21:08 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-07-23 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10540
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.3.1 |3.3.2
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-23 23:05 -------
This crash only occurs with --enable-checking, so I've postponed the bug until
GCC 3.3.2.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/10540] [3.3 regression] mips-sgi-irix6.5 testsuite failure in gcc.c-torture/execute/20020227-1.c with checking enabled
[not found] <20030429143602.10540.ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-23 23:05 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-07-28 21:08 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-07-28 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10540
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |DUPLICATE
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-28 21:08 -------
According to PR 6221, this is a generic failure on 64-bit targets.
It used to build, but do the wrong thing at runtime, so the fact that it now
aborts at compile time is in some ways an improvement.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 6221 ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread