From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7839 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2004 16:11:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7818 invoked by uid 48); 15 Jun 2004 16:11:15 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040615161115.7817.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "vmakarov at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040525193213.15653.hjl@lucon.org> References: <20040525193213.15653.hjl@lucon.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/15653] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg01866.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From vmakarov at redhat dot com 2004-06-15 16:11 ------- When I wrote the patch I worked on kernel_time.c. And the pacth solves the problem with the test. The test lock.c has another reason for the crash. It is in code putting additional nops between shift insn and a dependent insn. This code is specific for itanium1 only. As I see it does not work when the next insn is an asm insn. I'll send a patch for solving this problem too. I don't think we should pay attention to legacy hardware like itanium1. Could somebody tell me how many itanium1 machines are used now? And who are using them? I think we should remove code supporting Itanium1. Vlad -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15653