Re: target/491: [ARM 4l] unrecognizable insn

Re: target/491: [ARM 4l] unrecognizable insn

[Richard Earnshaw]

The following reply was made to PR target/491; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: pb@gcc.gnu.org, chris@cgnet.cx, pb@nexus.co.uk, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Subject: Re: target/491: [ARM 4l] unrecognizable insn 
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:11:59 +0000

 >     Bug confirmed to exist (indeed, positively notorious)
 
 I don't think this can occur in gcc-3.0 or later, since the way reload 
 handles these sort of problems has been radically altered.
 
 
 
 

Re: target/491: [ARM 4l] unrecognizable insn

[Phil Blundell]

The following reply was made to PR target/491; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Phil Blundell <pb@nexus.co.uk>
To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Cc: pb@gcc.gnu.org, chris@cgnet.cx, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: target/491: [ARM 4l] unrecognizable insn
Date: 18 Jan 2002 18:20:30 +0000

 On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 18:11, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
 > >     Bug confirmed to exist (indeed, positively notorious)
 > 
 > I don't think this can occur in gcc-3.0 or later, since the way reload 
 > handles these sort of problems has been radically altered.
 
 Okay, great.  I'll have a go at re-testing it with 3.0.
 
 What are we doing about bugs that are fixed in 3.0 and/or the trunk, but
 still in 2.95?  I guess there needs to come a time when keeping track of
 2.95 bugs becomes more trouble than it's worth, but I dunno if that time
 is now.
 
 p.
 

Re: target/491: [ARM 4l] unrecognizable insn

[pb]

Synopsis: [ARM 4l] unrecognizable insn

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: pb
State-Changed-When: Fri Jan 18 09:42:16 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    Bug confirmed to exist (indeed, positively notorious)

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=491