From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-483336-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 75246 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2015 17:08:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 75185 invoked by uid 48); 10 Apr 2015 17:08:53 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/65710] [4.9/5 Regression] Thumb1 ICE caused by no register to spill
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:08:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-65710-4-OGgN1hQJ74@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65710-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65710-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00888.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710

--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Yvan Roux from comment #21)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #18)
> > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> > > > To be clear, I think we can postpone fixing the performance issue till 5.2/6.
> > > > The reason this is a P1 is #c9, #c10, #c11.  Vlad, can you please have a
> > > > look at that?
> > > 
> > > Ok.  I'll be working on it for gcc-4.9.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the clarification.
> > 
> > #c10 says it happens on the trunk too.
> 
> I can't check full validation results right now, but the suggested fix in
> #c11 seems to fix the issue

Why is pr65648-2.c testcase missing from the trunk?  I see it only on the 4.9
branch...