From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31871 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2012 06:17:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 31859 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Mar 2012 06:17:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 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; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:17:15 +0000 From: "ralf_corsepius at rtems dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/52488] avr-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:17:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ralf_corsepius at rtems dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.1 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 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00946.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488 --- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius 2012-03-13 06:16:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > You can look up in the device datasheet to see how much RAM it has. Well, datasheets is one thing, GCC's internal notion is yet another. > Or do you want GCC to print out how much RAM each device has? No, I would expect GCC to print its rationale for this rejection. e.g. something like "allocating 2050 byte of stack exceeds maximum stack size (1024 bytes) ..." > > Well, my view is different: The avr's default set of multilib variants is > > non-suitable as general default set of multlib variants. It probably is > > suiteable as set of multilibs for bare-metal targets, but does not meet the > > demands of OSes. > > Do you have recommendations? Or better still, a patch? We will see, I am currently looking into implementing custom multilibs for avr-RTEMS, which may result into a patch addressing this as a side-effect. However, the avr's multilib implementation diverges from what is used almost elsewhere in GCC to an extend, this is a tedious.