From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8801 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2005 16:10:12 -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 8310 invoked by uid 48); 17 Jan 2005 16:09:21 -0000 Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050117160921.8309.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050111163457.19379.joel@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20050111163457.19379.joel@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/19379] [4.0 Regression] ICE during build of newlib's e_atan2.c when soft-float X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg02265.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17 16:09 ------- (In reply to comment #13) > As for (4), what do you think the problem *is* anyway? To me the problem is: "i386-rtems-gcc-4.0 ices when building the '-msoft-float -mtune=i386' multilib variant." Now the observation is, the '-soft-float -mtune=i386 -fno-fp-ret-in-387' multilib variant to be building fine. >>From this I conclude, that i386-*gcc-4.0 probably has a bug somewhere which causes it to generate incorrect code for '-msoft-float -mtune=i386'. I.e. I would be satisfied if we can manage to find a way to let the "-msoft-float -mtune=i386" multilib variant imply -fno-fp-ret-in-387". My proposals above were along the consideration of * Users reported "-fno-80387" not to be sufficient for real i386s w/o i387 * gcc-4.0 also seems to have encountered problems with it .. so why not merge "-mno-80387" and "-no-fp-ret-in-387"? > It's the fact > that "fxch" is marked TARGET_80387, and the only reason *that* got emitted > is to put the return value in the right place for MASK_FLOAT_RETURN. Duh. Sorry, I am as much an i386 expect to be able to comment on this. > And my suggestion is to add > > if (!TARGET_80387) > target_flags &= ~MASK_FLOAT_RETURNS; > > somewhere in the middle of override_options. Preferably near the other > bits that talk about fpmath etc. I need some more time to think about this. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19379