From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13104 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2012 15:11:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 13096 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Aug 2012 15:11:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TW_ZJ X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:11:28 +0000 Received: by wgbed3 with SMTP id ed3so559591wgb.8 for ; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.93.8 with SMTP id cq8mr3470005wib.16.1344438686996; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from richards-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com (gbibp9ph1--blueice2n1.emea.ibm.com. [195.212.29.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q4sm5546712wix.9.2012.08.08.08.11.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:11:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: "H.J. Lu" Mail-Followup-To: "H.J. Lu" ,Uros Bizjak , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Cc: Uros Bizjak , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: PATCH: PR rtl-optimization/54157: [x32] -maddress-mode=long failures References: <20120801184138.GA3787@intel.com> <87a9ye1lsh.fsf@talisman.home> <87r4rlkcf1.fsf@talisman.home> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:11:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (H. J. Lu's message of "Wed, 8 Aug 2012 06:50:03 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00443.txt.bz2 "H.J. Lu" writes: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> Probably we need to backport this patch to 4.7, where x32 is >> -maddress-mode=long by default. >> > > It doesn't fail on 4.7 branch since checking mode on PLUS CONST > is new on trunk. However, I think it is a correctness issue. Is this > OK to backport to 4.7? Yeah, I agree we should backport it. Richard