public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: target/8272: Unrecognized x86 instructions
@ 2002-10-22  0:06 rth
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: rth @ 2002-10-22  0:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs, gcc-prs, nobody, tpalmer

Synopsis: Unrecognized x86 instructions

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: rth
State-Changed-When: Tue Oct 22 00:06:05 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    No test case.  And it's almost certainly a problem of
    invalid inline assembly rather than a compiler bug.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8272


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* RE: target/8272: Unrecognized x86 instructions
@ 2002-10-22 10:06 Tomás Palmer
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tomás Palmer @ 2002-10-22 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs

The following reply was made to PR target/8272; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_Palmer?= <Tpalmer@widevine.com>
To: "'rth@gcc.gnu.org'" <rth@gcc.gnu.org>, "'gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org'"
	 <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, "'gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org'" <gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>, 
	"'nobody@gcc.gnu.org'" <nobody@gcc.gnu.org>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_Pa?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?lmer?= <Tpalmer@widevine.com>, "'gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org'"
	 <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:  
Subject: RE: target/8272: Unrecognized x86 instructions
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:58:51 -0700

 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
 this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
 
 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C279EC.4BF69850
 Content-Type: text/plain;
 	charset="iso-8859-1"
 
 I disagree. While I might buy that it is the fact that the default of the
 compiler is 386 on an Intel86 platform rather than 486+ might prevent these
 specific instructions. I am checking out that theory today now that I have
 documents for Gcc.
 The ASM instructions are correct as sent to you and assemble in-line with
 both Microsoft,Intel and other compilers in both Intel and ATT format.
 If my theory about the cpu flag does not address this issue then I am
 re-filing this bug and hope it gets assigned to someone with some ability to
 properly verify a test scenario rather than just guess.
 
 
 
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: rth@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:rth@gcc.gnu.org] 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:06 AM
 To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org; nobody@gcc.gnu.org;
 tpalmer@widevine.com
 Subject: Re: target/8272: Unrecognized x86 instructions
 
 Synopsis: Unrecognized x86 instructions
 
 State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 State-Changed-By: rth
 State-Changed-When: Tue Oct 22 00:06:05 2002
 State-Changed-Why:
     No test case.  And it's almost certainly a problem of
     invalid inline assembly rather than a compiler bug.
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&p
 r=8272
 
 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C279EC.4BF69850
 Content-Type: text/html;
 	charset="iso-8859-1"
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
 <HTML>
 <HEAD>
 <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
 charset=3Diso-8859-1">
 <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
 5.5.2653.12">
 <TITLE>RE: target/8272: Unrecognized x86 instructions</TITLE>
 </HEAD>
 <BODY>
 
 <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I disagree. While I might buy that it is the fact =
 that the default of the compiler is 386 on an Intel86 platform rather =
 than 486+ might prevent these specific instructions. I am checking out =
 that theory today now that I have documents for Gcc.</FONT></P>
 
 <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The ASM instructions are correct as sent to you and =
 assemble in-line with both Microsoft,Intel and other compilers in both =
 Intel and ATT format.</FONT></P>
 
 <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If my theory about the cpu flag does not address this =
 issue then I am re-filing this bug and hope it gets assigned to someone =
 with some ability to properly verify a test scenario rather than just =
 guess.</FONT></P>
 <BR>
 <BR>
 <BR>
 <BR>
 
 <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
 <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: rth@gcc.gnu.org [<A =
 HREF=3D"mailto:rth@gcc.gnu.org">mailto:rth@gcc.gnu.org</A>] </FONT>
 <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:06 AM</FONT>
 <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org; =
 nobody@gcc.gnu.org; tpalmer@widevine.com</FONT>
 <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: target/8272: Unrecognized x86 =
 instructions</FONT>
 </P>
 
 <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Synopsis: Unrecognized x86 instructions</FONT>
 </P>
 
 <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>State-Changed-From-To: open-&gt;closed</FONT>
 <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>State-Changed-By: rth</FONT>
 <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>State-Changed-When: Tue Oct 22 00:06:05 2002</FONT>
 <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>State-Changed-Why:</FONT>
 <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No test case.&nbsp; And it's =
 almost certainly a problem of</FONT>
 <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; invalid inline assembly rather =
 than a compiler bug.</FONT>
 </P>
 
 <P><FONT SIZE=3D2><A =
 HREF=3D"http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=3Dview%20audit-trail&=
 database=3Dgcc&pr=3D8272" =
 TARGET=3D"_blank">http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=3Dview%20au=
 dit-trail&database=3Dgcc&pr=3D8272</A></FONT>
 </P>
 
 </BODY>
 </HTML>
 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C279EC.4BF69850--


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* target/8272: Unrecognized x86 instructions
@ 2002-10-17 16:26 tpalmer
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: tpalmer @ 2002-10-17 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-gnats


>Number:         8272
>Category:       target
>Synopsis:       Unrecognized x86 instructions
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          rejects-legal
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Thu Oct 17 16:26:00 PDT 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Tomas Palmer
>Release:        gcc version 3.2 20020818
>Organization:
>Environment:
cygwin News
New Cygwin DLL 1.3.13-1 release
An update release for the Cygwin DLL and its accompanying utilities.
Oct 13 2002, Christopher Faylor
 
>Description:
 gcc cpuid.cpp
/cygdrive/c/DOCUME~1/ADMINI~1.TPA/LOCALS~1/Temp/ccUcVwfP.s: Assembler messages:
/cygdrive/c/DOCUME~1/ADMINI~1.TPA/LOCALS~1/Temp/ccUcVwfP.s:25: Error: no such instruction: `pushfd '
/cygdrive/c/DOCUME~1/ADMINI~1.TPA/LOCALS~1/Temp/ccUcVwfP.s:29: Error: no such instruction: `popfd '
/cygdrive/c/DOCUME~1/ADMINI~1.TPA/LOCALS~1/Temp/ccUcVwfP.s:30: Error: no such instruction: `pushfd '
>How-To-Repeat:
gcc cpuid.cpp
>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2002-10-22 17:06 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-10-22  0:06 target/8272: Unrecognized x86 instructions rth
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-22 10:06 Tomás Palmer
2002-10-17 16:26 tpalmer

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).