From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9952 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2007 08:43:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 9910 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2007 08:42:49 -0000 Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070106084249.9909.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/25514] [4.0/4.1 regression] internal consistency failure In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "richard at nildram dot co dot uk" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00369.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #21 from richard at nildram dot co dot uk 2007-01-06 08:42 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] internal consistency failure "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" writes: >> Eric asked me to weigh in here. My only concern about a backport is Comment >> #9, which suggests that the patch didn't work. I'm assuming that since we're >> all talking about backporting it, that comment was mistaken? If indeed there >> are no known problems, I think it's reasonable to put this on 4.1. > > Thanks Mark. It seems that a whole new class of internal consistency failures > due to the mishandling of REG_NOTEs in the combiner appeared in 4.1.x (for > example rtl-optimization/28243 and the blocked rtl-optimization/29329) and up. > Richard's patch is the most generic fix available as of today, so backporting > it or not to the 4.1.x branch has cascading effects on the other PRs. Maybe > the problem reported in comment #9 is another variant. > > Richard, are you still ready to backport it? If so, I can revert my patch for > rtl-optimization/28243 right now to make things easier. Yup, I'm still ready to backport it if the consensus is that the patch is OK for 4.1. I see from later comments that you might be backporting it yourself, but the offer still stands if you haven't started yet. Richard -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25514