From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6057 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2008 07:07:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 1809 invoked by uid 48); 7 Mar 2008 07:06:46 -0000 Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080307070646.1808.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug target/35373] [4.4 Regression] bootstraping on powerpc with 128bit long double fails with revision 132578 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00467.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #11 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-03-07 07:06 ------- (In reply to comment #10) > Created an attachment (id=15276) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15276&action=view) [edit] > Updated patch to disallow TFmode and TDmode from reg+reg addressing > > Here is an updated patch that not only fixes the bootstrap issue, but also > fixes a regression of the vect-64.c test case, both of which were being caught > by the new gcc_assert added by Joseph. Is there a reason why you don't use GET_MODE_SIZE (mode) != N in the expression? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35373