* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch no honored when -mflat
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
@ 2003-05-26 8:53 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-05-26 14:11 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
` (20 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi@yahoo.com @ 2003-05-26 8:53 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=10567
------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com 2003-05-26 08:38 -------
Hello,
is this problem still present in gcc 3.3 and mainline? 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] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch no honored when -mflat
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
2003-05-26 8:53 ` [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch no honored when -mflat dhazeghi@yahoo.com
@ 2003-05-26 14:11 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-08-24 2:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia@physics.uc.edu @ 2003-05-26 14:11 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=10567
pinskia@physics.uc.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
------- Additional Comments From pinskia@physics.uc.edu 2003-05-26 14:09 -------
See Dara's question.
------- 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] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch no honored when -mflat
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
2003-05-26 8:53 ` [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch no honored when -mflat dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-05-26 14:11 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
@ 2003-08-24 2:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-08-24 2:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-08-24 2:35 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=10567
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2003-08-24 02:35:42
date| |
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-08-24 02:35 -------
I can confirm this on the mainline (20030714).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch no honored when -mflat
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-08-24 2:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-08-24 2:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-08-24 2:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-08-24 2:41 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=10567
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-08-24 02:41 -------
It is also in the mainline (20030823).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch no honored when -mflat
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-08-24 2:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-08-24 2:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-08 9:07 ` [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in function epilogues ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-08-24 2:54 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=10567
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-08-24 02:54 -------
David could you test a patch for me as I do not have access to a sparc?
Index: sparc.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.256
diff -u -p -r1.256 sparc.c
--- sparc.c 16 Aug 2003 23:59:56 -0000 1.256
+++ sparc.c 24 Aug 2003 02:51:18 -0000
@@ -7223,11 +7223,13 @@ sparc_flat_function_epilogue (FILE *file
fprintf (file, "\tset\t" HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC ", %s\n",
size, t1_str);
}
-
- if (current_function_returns_struct)
- fprintf (file, "\tjmp\t%%o7+12\n");
- else
- fprintf (file, "\tretl\n");
+ if (flag_delayed_branch)
+ {
+ if (current_function_returns_struct)
+ fprintf (file, "\tjmp\t%%o7+12\n");
+ else
+ fprintf (file, "\tretl\n");
+ }
/* If the only register saved is the return address, we need a
nop, unless we have an instruction to put into it. Otherwise
@@ -7247,8 +7249,16 @@ sparc_flat_function_epilogue (FILE *file
else if (size > 0)
fprintf (file, "\tadd\t%s, %d, %s\n", sp_str, (int) size, sp_str);
- else
+ else if (flag_delayed_branch)
fprintf (file, "\tnop\n");
+
+ if (!flag_delayed_branch)
+ {
+ if (current_function_returns_struct)
+ fprintf (file, "\tjmp\t%%o7+12\n\tnop\n");
+ else
+ fprintf (file, "\tretl\n\tnop\n");
+ }
}
/* Reset state info for each function. */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in function epilogues
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2003-08-24 2:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-08 9:07 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-08 9:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-08 9:07 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=10567
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|-fno-delayed-branch no |-fno-delayed-branch not
|honored when -mflat |honored in function
| |epilogues
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-08 09:07 -------
It turns out that -fno-delayed-branch is not honored in the non-flat case
either, so Andrew's patch is not sufficient.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in function epilogues
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-08 9:07 ` [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in function epilogues ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-08 9:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-09 14:19 ` [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-08 9:08 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=10567
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-08 09:08 -------
I'm going to complete Andrew's patch and test it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-08 9:08 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-09 14:19 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-09-18 14:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-09 14:19 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=10567
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|-fno-delayed-branch not |-fno-delayed-branch not
|honored in function |honored in back-end
|epilogues |
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-09-09 14:19 -------
-fno-delayed-branch is not honored either by the following two peepholes:
;; Now peepholes to do a call followed by a jump.
(define_peephole
[(parallel [(set (match_operand 0 "" "")
(call (mem:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "call_operand_address" "ps"))
(match_operand 2 "" "")))
(clobber (reg:SI 15))])
(set (pc) (label_ref (match_operand 3 "" "")))]
"short_branch (INSN_UID (insn), INSN_UID (operands[3]))
&& (USING_SJLJ_EXCEPTIONS || ! can_throw_internal (ins1))
&& sparc_cpu != PROCESSOR_ULTRASPARC
&& sparc_cpu != PROCESSOR_ULTRASPARC3"
"call\t%a1, %2\n\tadd\t%%o7, (%l3-.-4), %%o7")
(define_peephole
[(parallel [(call (mem:SI (match_operand:SI 0 "call_operand_address" "ps"))
(match_operand 1 "" ""))
(clobber (reg:SI 15))])
(set (pc) (label_ref (match_operand 2 "" "")))]
"short_branch (INSN_UID (insn), INSN_UID (operands[2]))
&& (USING_SJLJ_EXCEPTIONS || ! can_throw_internal (ins1))
&& sparc_cpu != PROCESSOR_ULTRASPARC
&& sparc_cpu != PROCESSOR_ULTRASPARC3"
"call\t%a0, %1\n\tadd\t%%o7, (%l2-.-4), %%o7")
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-09 14:19 ` [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-09-18 14:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-11-26 7:48 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-09-18 14:30 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=10567
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |3.4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2003-09-18 14:30 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-11-26 7:48 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-11-26 8:37 ` davem at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-11-26 7:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-26 07:48 -------
David, I have a patch but it doesn't fix all the cases (IIRC sibcalls and I'm
not sure this is fixable). It also aims to prettify the assembly emitted for
delay slots, i.e. always indent like in
jmp %i7+8
restore
while, currently, there is a mix of indentation and non-indentation.
Would you mind if I re-target this bug for 3.5?
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC build triplet|sparc-unknown-linux-gnu |sparc*-*-*
GCC host triplet|sparc-unknown-linux-gnu |sparc*-*-*
GCC target triplet|sparc-unknown-linux-gnu |sparc*-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2003-11-26 7:48 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-11-26 8:37 ` davem at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-11-26 8:47 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: davem at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-11-26 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From davem at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-26 08:37 -------
The sibcall thing is easy to fix, just turn sibcalls off in the
sparc option handling fixup code if -fno-delayed-branch has been
specified.
No problem retargeting this to 3.5
I also agree with your delay slot indentation consolidation.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2003-11-26 8:37 ` davem at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-11-26 8:47 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-02-26 1:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-11-26 8:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-26 08:47 -------
Agreed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.4 |3.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2003-11-26 8:47 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-02-26 1:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-05-26 22:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-02-26 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |wrong-code
Last reconfirmed|2003-11-21 18:38:58 |2004-02-26 01:45:02
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2004-02-26 1:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-05-26 22:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-03 8:57 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-05-26 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.5.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2004-05-26 22:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-03 8:57 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-06 20:55 ` davem at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-03 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-03 08:57 -------
David, just to let you know that I've not forgotten this PR.
I have a patch that almost works, except that there is a last problem:
sparc_output_mi_thunk unconditionally uses a sibcall, which is forbidden with
-fno-delayed-branches. Trying to find a workaround to this...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-03 8:57 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-06 20:55 ` davem at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-07 21:33 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: davem at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-06 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From davem at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-06 20:55 -------
It may not be pretty, but I believe it solves the bug correctly.
I think it is worth applying. If we come up with a more clever
way to do this stuff, then we'll do so. Meanwhile the bug
will be fixed, there will be no regressions, and the ugliness
will be confined to the sparc backend.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-06 20:55 ` davem at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-07 21:33 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-07 22:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-07 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-07 21:33 -------
Subject: Bug 10567
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org 2004-07-07 21:33:09
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog
gcc/config/sparc: sparc.c sparc.md
Log message:
PR target/10567
* config/sparc/sparc.c (load_pic_register): Honor flag_delayed_branch.
(output_return): Likewise.
(output_sibcall): Abort if !flag_delayed_branch.
(sparc_function_ok_for_sibcall): Return 0 if !flag_delayed_branch.
(emit_and_preserve): New function.
(sparc_output_mi_thunk): Use it. Honor flag_delayed_branch. Emit an
indirect jump to the thunked-to function if !flag_delayed_branch.
* config/sparc/sparc.md (delayed_branch): New attribute.
(load_pcrel_sym): Honor flag_delayed_branch. Use above
attribute to compute the length of the insn.
(goto_handler_and_restore): Likewise.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.4349&r2=2.4350
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.311&r2=1.312
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.md.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.206&r2=1.207
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-07 21:33 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-07 22:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-07 22:37 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-07 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-07 22:21 -------
So this is fixed and be closed, right?
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |3.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-07 22:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-07 22:37 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-08 6:25 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-07 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-07 22:37 -------
I want to add a link to the gcc-patches message as usual. I sent it more than
one hour ago but it seems to be blocked somewhere. Don't worry, I'll close the
bug after the message has arrived.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-07 22:37 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-08 6:25 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-08 6:26 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-08 15:25 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-08 6:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-08 06:25 -------
(From update of attachment 6695)
The patch uploaded in the audit trail is not quite correct, the C++ thunk
support is broken.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #6695 is|0 |1
obsolete| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-08 6:25 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-08 6:26 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-08 15:25 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-08 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-08 06:26 -------
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg00699.html
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* [Bug target/10567] -fno-delayed-branch not honored in back-end
[not found] <20030430161600.10567.davem@redhat.com>
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-08 6:26 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-08 15:25 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-08 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-08 15:25 -------
Subject: Bug 10567
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org 2004-07-08 15:25:05
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog
gcc/config/sparc: sparc.md
Log message:
PR target/10567
* config/sparc/sparc.md (update_return): Honor flag_delayed_branch.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.4379&r2=2.4380
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/config/sparc/sparc.md.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.207&r2=1.208
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10567
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread