From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26168 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2011 18:33:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 26159 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2011 18:33:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 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; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:33:39 +0000 From: "denisc at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/50925] [4.7 Regression][avr] ICE at spill_failure, at reload1.c:2118 Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:33:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: other X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: denisc at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC 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 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00464.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925 denisc at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |denisc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-05 18:31:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > I'm not going to be able to look at it anytime soon, but just some general > thoughts: I think that I'm ready to explain the bug. > 1. Disabling caller-saves probably isn't appropriate. Just looking at > codesize isn't the way to evaluate caller-saves either as caller-saves is > tasked with improving performance, possibly at the expense of codesize. I'm agree. I don't want to disable caller-saves. > > 2. The first thing someone needs to do is provide information as to why that > insn needs reloads. I don't know enough about the AVR to hazard as guess why > that insn needs reloads. > > 3. Find out where insn 172 comes from. There are restrictions on the insns > created by caller-save. So if caller-save creates a bogus insn, then that > needs to be investigated. Generally, caller-save generate right insn. 1. AVR port have a specific dependency between frame_pointer_neede and gat_frame_size()