From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10239 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2004 07:00:31 -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 10217 invoked by uid 48); 20 Sep 2004 07:00:30 -0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040920070030.10213.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040920064340.17565.rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20040920064340.17565.rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/17565] asms in delay slots X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg02226.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-20 07:00 ------- Mark, is this OK for 3.4? Patch is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg01905.html As I said in the message: This problem goes back to at least 2.95, so it isn't technically a regression. On the other hand, it's the kind of bug that could trigger for different types of code in different releases, so I'm sure there's a testcase that fails (say) in 3.4 and not in 2.95. The bug is known to cause wrong-code problems in linux and the patch is very simple and (IMO) very low risk. Richard -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot | |org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17565