* [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] switch jumptable causes assembler error
[not found] <20030327104600.10239.gni@gecko.de>
@ 2003-06-02 0:55 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-09-27 3:52 ` bernie at develer dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi@yahoo.com @ 2003-06-02 0:55 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=10239
dhazeghi@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2003-06-02 00:55:14
date| |
------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com 2003-06-02 00:55 -------
Thanks for the feedback (sorry I didn't notice it earlier). Yes, this behavior definitely falls in the
category of broken...
------- 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] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] switch jumptable causes assembler error
[not found] <20030327104600.10239.gni@gecko.de>
2003-06-02 0:55 ` [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] switch jumptable causes assembler error dhazeghi@yahoo.com
@ 2003-09-27 3:52 ` bernie at develer dot com
2003-10-03 16:57 ` zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: bernie at develer dot com @ 2003-09-27 3:52 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=10239
------- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2003-09-27 03:27 -------
I can confirm the bug on mainline (20030927),
but it takes a few more case labels to get a
jump table.
I wonder why it doesn't happen on i386...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] switch jumptable causes assembler error
[not found] <20030327104600.10239.gni@gecko.de>
2003-06-02 0:55 ` [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] switch jumptable causes assembler error dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-09-27 3:52 ` bernie at develer dot com
@ 2003-10-03 16:57 ` zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-10-04 4:36 ` zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-03 16:57 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=10239
zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2003-06-02 00:55:14 |2003-10-03 16:57:36
date| |
------- Additional Comments From zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-03 16:57 -------
Proposed fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-10/msg00226.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] switch jumptable causes assembler error
[not found] <20030327104600.10239.gni@gecko.de>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-03 16:57 ` zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-10-04 4:36 ` zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-10-05 18:16 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-04 4:36 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=10239
zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mark at codesourcery dot com
Last reconfirmed|2003-10-03 16:57:36 |2003-10-04 04:36:21
date| |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] switch jumptable causes assembler error
[not found] <20030327104600.10239.gni@gecko.de>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-04 4:36 ` zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-10-05 18:16 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
2003-10-08 14:51 ` gni at gecko dot de
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: mark at codesourcery dot com @ 2003-10-05 18:16 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=10239
------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2003-10-05 18:16 -------
Subject: Re: [m68k] switch jumptable causes
assembler error
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 21:36, zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10239
This defect is not marked as 3.3 *regression*; just as a bug present in
3.3. Unless this defect did not occur in some previous release of GCC,
I will not review this patch for GCC 3.3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] switch jumptable causes assembler error
[not found] <20030327104600.10239.gni@gecko.de>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-05 18:16 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
@ 2003-10-08 14:51 ` gni at gecko dot de
2003-10-08 15:00 ` gni at gecko dot de
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: gni at gecko dot de @ 2003-10-08 14:51 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=10239
------- Additional Comments From gni at gecko dot de 2003-10-08 14:50 -------
Subject: Re: [m68k] switch jumptable causes assembler error
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 04:57:36PM -0000, zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Proposed fix:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-10/msg00226.html
The proposed fix did solve this issue for 3.3 (release) and 3.4 (20031008).
Thank you for taking care of that bug!
Gunther
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] switch jumptable causes assembler error
[not found] <20030327104600.10239.gni@gecko.de>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-08 14:51 ` gni at gecko dot de
@ 2003-10-08 15:00 ` gni at gecko dot de
2003-10-08 15:40 ` [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] [3.3/3.4 regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: gni at gecko dot de @ 2003-10-08 15:00 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=10239
------- Additional Comments From gni at gecko dot de 2003-10-08 15:00 -------
Subject: Re: [m68k] switch jumptable causes assembler error
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 06:16:13PM -0000, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>
> ------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2003-10-05 18:16 -------
> Subject: Re: [m68k] switch jumptable causes
> assembler error
>
> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 21:36, zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> > PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10239
>
> This defect is not marked as 3.3 *regression*; just as a bug present in
> 3.3.
How is a bug marked as a regression? Must that happen at the time the
send-pr is done?
> Unless this defect did not occur in some previous release of GCC, I will
> not review this patch for GCC 3.3.
Older GCC versions didn't have that bug. I assume that makes the bug a
regression. However, since modern binutils don't have a problem and that
the bug won't show up often, I think the patch isn't necessary on the
3.3 branch. If its applied to 3.3 thats also fine for me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] [3.3/3.4 regression] switch jumptable causes assembler error
[not found] <20030327104600.10239.gni@gecko.de>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-08 15:00 ` gni at gecko dot de
@ 2003-10-08 15:40 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2003-10-08 15:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2003-10-08 15:40 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=10239
giovannibajo at libero dot it changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[m68k] switch jumptable |[m68k] [3.3/3.4 regression]
|causes assembler error |switch jumptable causes
| |assembler error
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2003-10-08 15:40 -------
Marked as a regression, since it is a regression in fact. Mark, it's your call
to review this patch for the branch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] [3.3/3.4 regression] switch jumptable causes assembler error
[not found] <20030327104600.10239.gni@gecko.de>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-08 15:40 ` [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] [3.3/3.4 regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2003-10-08 15:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-10-08 16:28 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-10-31 14:46 ` zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-08 15:44 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=10239
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |3.3.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] [3.3/3.4 regression] switch jumptable causes assembler error
[not found] <20030327104600.10239.gni@gecko.de>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-08 15:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-10-08 16:28 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-10-31 14:46 ` zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-08 16:28 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=10239
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.3.2 |3.4
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-08 16:28 -------
I'd rather not apply this patch on the branch, since the submitter indicates
that there's a good workaround (newer binutils) and the patch does affect
target-independent code.
So, I've moved the target milestone back to 3.4.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug optimization/10239] [m68k] [3.3/3.4 regression] switch jumptable causes assembler error
[not found] <20030327104600.10239.gni@gecko.de>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2003-10-08 16:28 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-10-31 14:46 ` zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-10-31 14:46 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=10239
zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
------- Additional Comments From zlomek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-31 14:20 -------
I have commited a fix to mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-10/msg00226.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread