From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5699 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2013 22:21:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 5501 invoked by uid 48); 18 Feb 2013 22:21:29 -0000 From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/55030] [4.8 Regression]: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c execution, -Os (et al) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:21:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hp at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hp at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0 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: 2013-02/txt/msg01858.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030 --- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2013-02-18 22:21:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #13) > The original patch was the patch you reverted in comment #1 and the fix for the > original issue. As far as I can see, you didn't put it back after installing > the blockage patch, which is the patch in comment #5. The dse.c and cselib.c > hunks were not necessary and not in the submission, but I asked you to add them > for the sake of consistency; then Jakub pointed out that they pessimize > volatile asms. Thanks for clarifying, I (think I) get it now. Not sure when I can revisit, maybe this month, maybe the next, so I won't feel bad if someone beats me to it.