From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11417 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2010 11:01:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 11379 invoked by uid 48); 29 Jun 2010 11:00:51 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100629110051.11378.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug testsuite/44701] [4.6 regression] PR44492 fix broke gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "mikpe at it dot uu dot se" 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: 2010-06/txt/msg02792.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-06-29 11:00 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > - asm ("asm2%U0 %0" : "=m" (*p)); > + asm ("asm2%U0 %0" : "=m<>" (*p)); That fixed the test case. Thanks. I didn't know about the PowerPC-specific %U thing, but now I see that the compiler did the right thing. Seems like the descriptions of "m" and "es" in the PowerPC-specific part of md.texi are now a bit stale: "es" should be equivalent to "m", and "m" should be safe (free of side-effects) unless accompanied by "<" or ">". -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44701