From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id A52E23858C30; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:59:03 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A52E23858C30 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1706597943; bh=NAHs41t/DQv5WTwW3v21TZyCpI3bxF21WK3MGugAQJQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=eh7eAwspdRgmddZRfva+UtzO/VKgcQeu8IwnpXjVqC8EJkeL/tz8R6Cz3rGcYFbvc jDy+nhdV7vEV7JxnGleaVYQ0tEfp/D1SvSWr0gUCix+JZzg5hnwdGJQEPX0hjlCi+g OcX/2QOOVyG+JVJMEF9i23+veQCt4LftkCOK1zLU= From: "linkw at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/113652] [14 regression] Failed bootstrap on ppc unrecognized opcode: `lfiwzx' with -mcpu=7450 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:59:03 +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: linkw at gcc dot gnu.org 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: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: short_desc 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=3D113652 Kewen Lin changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Failed bootstrap on ppc |[14 regression] Failed |unrecognized opcode: |bootstrap on ppc |`lfiwzx' with -mcpu=3D7450 |unrecognized opcode: | |`lfiwzx' with -mcpu=3D7450 --- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #10) > (In reality, I think it is a regression, given: > a) it regresses non-release checking (which we sometimes use even for > released versions, it's opt-in though); But I assumed that non-release checking on old releases should also fail, f= rom non-release vs. non-release, the behavior doesn't change. > b) it blocks further testing with GCC 14 >=20 Sorry for that, put it back as you like. :) > but I understand the argument that if a release were made with it, it > wouldn't be the end of the world by itself and it only affects a specific > configuration.)=