From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32265 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2014 18:21:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32250 invoked by uid 89); 1 Aug 2014 18:21:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com Received: from mail-bn1blp0182.outbound.protection.outlook.com (HELO na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (207.46.163.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 18:21:47 +0000 Received: from BN1PR0301MB0644.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.160.171.17) by BN1PR0301MB0643.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.160.171.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 18:21:43 +0000 Received: from BN1PR0301MB0644.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.171.17]) by BN1PR0301MB0644.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.171.17]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.014; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 18:21:43 +0000 From: "rohitarulraj@freescale.com" To: Jakub Jelinek CC: Ulrich Weigand , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Edmar Wienskoski , "dje.gcc@gmail.com" , Alan Modra , "rohitarulraj@freescale.com" Subject: RE: [RFC: Patch, PR 60102] [4.9/4.10 Regression] powerpc fp-bit ices@dwf_regno Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 18:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: <011e0bdb95564175b76c57e31a2b53c5@BN1PR0301MB0644.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <201408011428.s71ESvBE005167@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <9ffea8b9e44144208d66d2a5795438ba@BN1PR0301MB0644.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20140801180948.GK7393@tucnak.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140801180948.GK7393@tucnak.redhat.com> x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 029097202E x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(6009001)(24454002)(199002)(189002)(51704005)(5423002)(101416001)(80022001)(106116001)(33646002)(76576001)(31966008)(86362001)(83072002)(93886004)(106356001)(77096002)(4396001)(74316001)(85306004)(107046002)(66066001)(74502001)(79102001)(81542001)(81342001)(95666004)(50986999)(110136001)(54356999)(77982001)(76176999)(2656002)(19580395003)(85852003)(19580405001)(74662001)(83322001)(21056001)(92566001)(99396002)(20776003)(105586002)(64706001)(76482001)(87936001)(46102001)(99286002)(221513003)(24736002)(108616003);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BN1PR0301MB0643;H:BN1PR0301MB0644.namprd03.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;MLV:sfv;PTR:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: freescale.com X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 Jakub, > On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:03:56PM +0000, rohitarulraj@freescale.com wrot= e: > > PR target/60102 >=20 > --- libgcc/config/rs6000/linux-unwind.h (revision 213110) > +++ libgcc/config/rs6000/linux-unwind.h (working copy) > @@ -274,8 +274,8 @@ ppc_fallback_frame_state (struct _Unwind > #ifdef __SPE__ > for (i =3D 14; i < 32; i++) > { > - fs->regs.reg[i + FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER - 1].how =3D REG_SAVED_OFFS= ET; > - fs->regs.reg[i + FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER - 1].loc.offset > + fs->regs.reg[i + FIRST_SPE_HIGH_REGNO - 4].how =3D REG_SAVED_OFFSE= T; > + fs->regs.reg[i + FIRST_SPE_HIGH_REGNO - 4].loc.offset > =3D (long) ®s->vregs - new_cfa + 4 * i; > } > #endif >=20 > is a different index, previously i + 116, newly i + 113, is that intentio= nal? >=20 Yes, it is intentional. This part of code wasn't updated after the introduction of three HTM regist= ers. Regards, Rohit