From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2976 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2002 23:06:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2953 invoked by uid 71); 30 Oct 2002 23:06:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021030230601.2951.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Michael Matz Subject: Re: optimization/6162: gcc 3.0.4: certain i386 asm reloader ice Reply-To: Michael Matz X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01279.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/6162; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Michael Matz To: Torbjorn Granlund Cc: Kevin Ryde , Nathanael Nerode , , , Subject: Re: optimization/6162: gcc 3.0.4: certain i386 asm reloader ice Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:02:24 +0100 (CET) Hi, On 30 Oct 2002, Torbjorn Granlund wrote: > In GCC, I doubt immediate values will be used for add_ssaaaa. In GMP > immediates are used, but by conventions they are used for the 2nd > operand. > > There are a couple of other packages that use longlong.h as well, but > they don't use immediates. > > I suggest that we don't touch longlong.h, since it is not really a > problem. Well, GNATS 6162 indicates otherwise ;-) But I have no hard feelings either way, we'll get reload aborts if it turns out to be used in unlucky situations. > Who knows, one day GCC might get this right. Hopefully, somewhen, yes ;-) Ciao, Michael.