From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 72241 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2017 11:26:28 -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 72207 invoked by uid 89); 19 Dec 2017 11:26:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:2017092, H*i:sk:CAFiYyc X-HELO: mx2.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:26:26 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A22AAC5; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:26:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix i?86 bootstrap (PR rtl-optimization/82044) To: Richard Biener , Richard Biener Cc: Jakub Jelinek , Jeff Law , GCC Patches References: <20170920081519.GU1701@tucnak> <7cff6742-bd7a-5ea2-80fb-aca74610f591@suse.cz> <7e976ae2-4aab-9abd-1990-94b9804db8f9@redhat.com> <87d09716-916c-974f-9a4e-7fa95f6b97c3@suse.cz> <20171121232720.GD14653@tucnak> <20171122003015.GE14653@tucnak> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= Message-ID: <80868452-d59c-a661-e572-868aed377a74@suse.cz> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:26:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg01238.txt.bz2 On 11/22/2017 10:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:27:20AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>>> The following patch fixes those two issues and adds similar overflow >>>> check to record_store too (in that spot width is always non-negative, so >>>> we don't need a special width == -1 handling). >>>> >>>> Bootstrapped successfully on i686-linux, ok for trunk if it passes regtest >>>> there (and pending x86_64-linux bootstrap + regtest)? >>> >>> Now successfully bootstrapped/regtested on both. >> >> Ok. > > I've reverted the patch on the branch. This isn't stuff we should > backport IMHO. > > Richard. > >> Richard. Thank you all for fixing that. I'm sorry for that. Martin