public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "wilson at specifixinc dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/16589] [3.5.0 regression] [m68k] segmentation fault on identical array accesses in the ?: operators' body
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:39:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040902033950.10735.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040716124408.16589.loki@inf.u-szeged.hu>
------- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-09-02 03:39 -------
Subject: Re: [3.5.0 regression] [m68k] segmentation fault
on identical array accesses in the ?: operators' body
loki at inf dot u-szeged dot hu wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From loki at inf dot u-szeged dot hu 2004-08-31 09:21 -------
> I have another testcase. Is it a similar problem?
> pr.i:6: internal compiler error: in output_348, at insn-output.c:3487
Yes, it is the same problem.
By the way, this problem goes away with my flag_trapping_math bug fix
(it should be on by default but is not). However, the underlying
problem remains, and can still be triggered if you use the
-fno-trapping-math option.
The underlying problem seems to be that we have two condition codes, one
integer one and one FP one, and cc_status can only track one of them at
a time. If we clobber cc_status when CC_IN_68881 is set, then this
problem will be fixed, but we won't be able to optimize away FP compares
anymore, and hence there will be some performance loss. However, the
current code looks like it will handle negative-zero incorrectly, and
probably also signalling NaNs, and maybe some other stuff too, so this
may be a good idea anyways in order to fix some IEEE math correctness
problems.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16589
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-02 3:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-16 12:44 [Bug target/16589] New: " loki at inf dot u-szeged dot hu
2004-07-16 13:59 ` [Bug target/16589] [3.5.0 regression] [m68k] " schwab at suse dot de
2004-07-16 14:54 ` schwab at suse dot de
2004-07-16 18:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-31 9:21 ` loki at inf dot u-szeged dot hu
2004-09-02 3:39 ` wilson at specifixinc dot com [this message]
2004-10-22 11:44 ` [Bug target/16589] [4.0 " loki at inf dot u-szeged dot hu
2004-10-22 13:44 ` schwab at suse dot de
2004-10-22 13:45 ` schwab at suse dot de
2004-10-22 13:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-01 18:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-03 12:25 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 17:32 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-05 19:48 ` [Bug target/16589] [4.0/4.1 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040902033950.10735.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).