* [Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
[not found] <bug-45511-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2011-06-16 20:18 ` rmansfield at qnx dot com
2011-06-16 21:07 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: rmansfield at qnx dot com @ 2011-06-16 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
Ryan Mansfield <rmansfield at qnx dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Mansfield <rmansfield at qnx dot com> 2011-06-16 20:17:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't see this with an arm-linux-gnu toolchain for r163798.
Were you using a 64 bit host?
8486 if (immtype == 17)
8487 {
8488 /* FIXME: Broken on 32-bit H_W_I hosts. */
8489 gcc_assert (sizeof (HOST_WIDE_INT) == 8);
8490
8491 for (i = 0; i < 8; i++)
I can still reproduce this with trunk, and there's a FIXME with a note about
this bug. Can this PR be moved out of WAITING, or is there some other
information I need to provide?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
[not found] <bug-45511-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-06-16 20:18 ` [Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294 rmansfield at qnx dot com
@ 2011-06-16 21:07 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-06-16 23:01 ` rmansfield at qnx dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-06-16 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-06-16 21:07:00 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, rmansfield at qnx dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
>
> Ryan Mansfield <rmansfield at qnx dot com> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC| |ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
>
> --- Comment #4 from Ryan Mansfield <rmansfield at qnx dot com> 2011-06-16 20:17:00 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > I don't see this with an arm-linux-gnu toolchain for r163798.
>
> Were you using a 64 bit host?
>
> 8486 if (immtype == 17)
> 8487 {
> 8488 /* FIXME: Broken on 32-bit H_W_I hosts. */
> 8489 gcc_assert (sizeof (HOST_WIDE_INT) == 8);
EABI targets force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT, so the vast majority of users of
the ARM port won't hit this assert. If you really care about old-ABI
targets (and deprecation of arm-linux-gnu and arm-elf is long overdue),
maybe ARM should just force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT unconditionally.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
[not found] <bug-45511-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-06-16 20:18 ` [Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294 rmansfield at qnx dot com
2011-06-16 21:07 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-06-16 23:01 ` rmansfield at qnx dot com
2011-06-16 23:16 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2013-12-17 16:42 ` rmansfield at qnx dot com
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: rmansfield at qnx dot com @ 2011-06-16 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
--- Comment #6 from Ryan Mansfield <rmansfield at qnx dot com> 2011-06-16 23:00:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> EABI targets force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT, so the vast majority of users of
> the ARM port won't hit this assert. If you really care about old-ABI
> targets (and deprecation of arm-linux-gnu and arm-elf is long overdue),
> maybe ARM should just force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT unconditionally.
Thanks for replying, JSM. Looking at config.gcc, there still seems to be a
quite a number of targets that still use the apcs-gnu ABI. Are you suggesting
all of the non-EABI targets be deprecated, or just the arm-linux-gnu/arm-elf
configurations? Is there any downside or reason why not to add
need_64bit_hwint=yes for all arm targets?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
[not found] <bug-45511-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-06-16 23:01 ` rmansfield at qnx dot com
@ 2011-06-16 23:16 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2013-12-17 16:42 ` rmansfield at qnx dot com
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-06-16 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-06-16 23:15:47 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, rmansfield at qnx dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
>
> --- Comment #6 from Ryan Mansfield <rmansfield at qnx dot com> 2011-06-16 23:00:25 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > EABI targets force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT, so the vast majority of users of
> > the ARM port won't hit this assert. If you really care about old-ABI
> > targets (and deprecation of arm-linux-gnu and arm-elf is long overdue),
> > maybe ARM should just force 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT unconditionally.
>
> Thanks for replying, JSM. Looking at config.gcc, there still seems to be a
> quite a number of targets that still use the apcs-gnu ABI. Are you suggesting
> all of the non-EABI targets be deprecated, or just the arm-linux-gnu/arm-elf
> configurations? Is there any downside or reason why not to add
> need_64bit_hwint=yes for all arm targets?
The suggested deprecation is of arm-linux-gnu, obsoleted by
arm-linux-gnueabi, arm-elf, obsoleted by arm-eabi, and probably
arm-uclinux, obsoleted by arm-uclinuxeabi.
It's been suggested that 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT compilers are slower on
32-bit hosts than those with 32-bit HOST_WIDE_INT, but I haven't seen any
figures, and think in practice it would be better to use 64-bit
HOST_WIDE_INT unconditionally for *all* hosts and targets and so eliminate
one source of host-dependency bugs.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294
[not found] <bug-45511-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-06-16 23:16 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2013-12-17 16:42 ` rmansfield at qnx dot com
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: rmansfield at qnx dot com @ 2013-12-17 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511
Ryan Mansfield <rmansfield at qnx dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #8 from Ryan Mansfield <rmansfield at qnx dot com> ---
ARM OABI is no longer a supported target.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread