From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-110108-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4416 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2004 09:42:55 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 4392 invoked by uid 48); 13 Sep 2004 09:42:54 -0000
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:42:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20040913094254.4390.qmail@sourceware.org>
From: "rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <20040825141851.17186.herton@brturbo.com>
References: <20040825141851.17186.herton@brturbo.com>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/17186] [3.4/3.5 regression] ICE in move_for_stack_reg, at reg-stack.c:1065
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01334.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>


------- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-09-13 09:42 -------
(In reply to comment #26)
> Fixed.

You applied the first patch to the 3.4 branch as well.  Doesn't the second patch
need backporting too?

R.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17186