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 BDB883858423; Tue,  5 Dec 2023 17:46:22 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BDB883858423
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1701798382;
	bh=f2AYig6eGAzF9Bh0CKNqn9ZM9KqVs0H2m6OFMa7b5mc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=QtpKiXBVi+0jxwllc1fOOxYw+s4ZqD6Zu7fDnsW8jly/+I7TKYvhOQGVLbSn32+vi
	 aNsFjgoK8TNCKeyZzNZMpZyM6PS1WwB+U2ul4qEyIY9f3XUaOAcSEJi46LiRsNYMF1
	 EuiT2iNMaYAgLgC7gw2rXzNSxudOyWwTCENKNVMs=
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/112707] [14 regression] gcc 14 outputs invalid assembly
 on ppc: Error: unrecognized opcode: `fctid'
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2023 17:46:21 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: assemble-failure
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: guihaoc at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-112707-4-ly3WGh0vXU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112707-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112707-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112707

--- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #12)
> > I'll note that you don't always
> > get an assembler error, since gcc still passes -many to the assembler f=
or
> > non --enable-checking gcc builds, which causes it to accept the fctid i=
nsn.
>=20
> Hrm.  Was that an oversight?  Should we always do that now?  Can you prep=
are
> a patch (and test on some common configs) please?

I was surprised as you that we were still passing -many to the assembler un=
der
some circumstances.  That said, removing all -many usage is orthogonal to t=
his
bug.  I'll open another bug where we can discuss what to do wrt that.=