From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32202 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2011 21:07:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 32192 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2011 21:07:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_QN X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:07:33 +0000 From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/45511] ICE in neon_valid_immediate, at config/arm/arm.c:8294 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: joseph at codesourcery dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:07:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01495.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45511 --- Comment #5 from 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 changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |ramana at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #4 from Ryan Mansfield 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.