From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id F016B3858D33; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 18:14:05 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F016B3858D33 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1676571245; bh=yLjFvABuLcFM4XE289/SYE2lUbU5h+r6roMQDK5BqUg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=u+BznfEFyo125/RHthDbx5U4obPcT2OWxDGvDCYQaIt37cIfMZHdkjPrfozLGc/UN 8qkSrwHqZeIb0hlgtVokADWE1MCuQ8xrxOHC4TvgdtWtjO4d+1ywD16lYbxyfHRBYp sXMLcYo8s2dc8tfUlmhGHQA/ildkrBdodSuvgDik= From: "jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/103370] [12/13 Regression] Assembler error building glibc for ColdFire soft-float Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 18:14:04 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: assemble-failure X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103370 --- Comment #9 from Joseph S. Myers --- The glibc build failure has done away and come back at least once since my previous comment. It came back (I think the most recent time) with commit 4fa25a7eb322f0a003c1eb15680c71ece345e01e Author: Martin Liska AuthorDate: Mon Jan 24 15:45:38 2022 +0100 Commit: Martin Liska CommitDate: Wed Nov 30 14:03:43 2022 +0100 Improve profile handling in switch lowering. PR tree-optimization/101301 PR tree-optimization/103680 though that's almost surely just exposing a back-end bug. However, the redu= ced test here gave a different assembler error /tmp/cc40cNSh.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/cc40cNSh.s:320: Error: syntax error -- statement `lea (.LC0@GOT+3,%a5),%a0' ignored /tmp/cc40cNSh.s:328: Error: syntax error -- statement `lea (.LC1@GOT+3,%a5),%a2' ignored both before and after that commit (different register numbers and .s line numbers before versus after). Despite the different error messages from the reduced test and building glibc, they are still likely to be the same bug in the m68k back end.=