From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15446 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2004 19:41:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15432 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2004 19:41:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Jul 2004 19:41:06 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i68Jf5e1007245; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:41:05 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i68Jf4010831; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:41:04 -0400 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (vpn50-62.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.62]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i68Jf3FM001420; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:41:04 -0400 Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br [127.0.0.1]) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i68Jf3ml017118; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 16:41:03 -0300 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i68Jf2lE017115; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 16:41:02 -0300 To: Richard Sandiford Cc: Kazu Hirata , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: add h8sx support to h8300 References: <20040621.102356.74724063.kazu@cs.umass.edu> <87fz83f456.fsf@redhat.com> <87zn6aevpa.fsf@redhat.com> <873c42e8rb.fsf@redhat.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: Red Hat Global Engineering Services Compiler Team Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 20:23:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <873c42e8rb.fsf@redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00829.txt.bz2 On Jul 8, 2004, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Alexandre Oliva writes: >>> I tried the attached, both with and without the h8300.md bit, >>> and it didn't make any difference to the results for this testcase. >>> Like you say, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer fails either way. >> >> Right. But lower optimization levels failed before the patch, and >> passed with it. > But my point is that the testcase passes at the other optimisation > levels even if the patch I attached is applied. (The patch just > reverts to the previous behaviour.) Yeah. The previous behavior was broken for me. Maybe something changed since then. I was actually fixing problems I ran into on a 3.4ish tree, so maybe the problems aren't there in 3.5. I don't think they were actually fixed, though. Probably just hiding. Maybe you can still get the problem with dg/builtin-apply2.c? I remember it failed to compile because of some movmd-related problems. After the changes, compilation succeeded, and we only had run-time failures because the calling conventions defined by the ABI aren't compatible with that __builtin_apply() expects. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}