From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id BA5FF3858CDA; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 07:48:28 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BA5FF3858CDA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1675237708; bh=tIGSJN6kpADV+Rftvmylk0thRMeEjd2kiIqxBVlwz+g=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=RNqP9PwnWN8vIBbiI5kHgAuqiXk78p5nnpqY+kiugC4My12cuE4Fa+Nb6fEUZ8hX2 vnwgn2x1eBVlQcfxN5VkLKr1xDgnpxLaOBpIh+gMoLkRALan5m4gcVy+t1ku1cVArW Cdnpxs8Eo1VairMn1wgk05pJnBoJPq6Fzq6Co0ww= From: "fiesh at zefix dot tv" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/105753] [avr] ICE: in add_clobbers, at config/avr/avr-dimode.md:2705 Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 07:48:28 +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: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: fiesh at zefix dot tv X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- 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=3D105753 --- Comment #13 from fiesh at zefix dot tv --- User99627, a few points: * My test case does require lto to be present. There's nothing to be gained from your statement that the bug doesn't require lto, there are test cases = for either case. The reason I included it is that it may exhibit different behavior which may or may not stem from a separate bug, so it's worth check= ing if both test cases are resolved by a resolution to this issue. * While this appears to be of life or death importance to you, this may not= be the same for everyone working on gcc, as reflected by its P3 importance. * Why do you use "dysfuctional software?" You should avoid doing that. * Attacking people usually does not improve their willingness to help you, especially when you don't pay them to help you. * While you failed to provide anything meaningful to the bug report (your c= ode snippet is not self-contained valid C code; no one here will care about yo= ur attempts to get package maintainers of software distributions to do somethi= ng stupid and restrict the versions of software they include based on your preferences), you are still welcome to fix the bug in gcc and provide a pat= ch yourself.=