From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 989603858411; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 08:38:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 989603858411
From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/104117] gcc10 fails to build icu for ppc64 on 10.5.8
 (direct access to a floating-point constant)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 08:38:10 +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: 10.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: link-failure, ra, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-104117-4-Nwc4D8W9ZV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104117-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104117-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 08:38:10 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104117

--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
.. not (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)

not enough coffee before posting ...

[this problem comes into play when we use force_const_mem() on an operand, =
and
then process_address() on that - but disentangling what exactly is happening
will take some more time].

( I am not familiar with using the RTL FE so that is something that will al=
so
take some time )

> I had a quick look yesterday and it seems that there might be a bug in the
> target address legaliser in this case [it is being called].
>=20
> (there is another extremely similar problem, where the legaliser is never
> called, but I was jumping to conclusions that it was the same one too soo=
n)

It seems that both of these are actually in play (it is not sufficient just=
 to
fix the legaliser)=