From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22752 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2013 09:42:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 22737 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jan 2013 09:42:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f175.google.com) (209.85.220.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:42:13 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id fw7so3761887vcb.20 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 01:42:12 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.52.66.51 with SMTP id c19mr19810976vdt.123.1358847732124; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 01:42:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.215.38 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 01:41:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50FD6B5D.7040008@redhat.com> References: <50F9E596.7000100@redhat.com> <50FD6B5D.7040008@redhat.com> From: Steven Bosscher Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch] PR inline-asm/55934 To: Vladimir Makarov Cc: GCC Patches , Jakub Jelinek Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg01078.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > I'd prefer the above change than just keeping > lra_invalidate_insn_data call. I think it is more safe solution for other > parts of LRA code. I agree, but unfortunately the compiler does not... With that lra.c change, I get extra fails: +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/20011029-2.c (internal compiler error) +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/20011029-2.c (test for excess errors) +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr21291.c (internal compiler error) +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr21291.c (test for excess errors) These are constrain_operands(1) failures in check_rtl. Apparently some relevant info is lost in lra_update_insn_recog_data. Not sure how to debug this... Ciao! Steven