From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-24966-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12020 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2002 02:56:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11979 invoked by uid 71); 21 Nov 2002 02:56:01 -0000
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:36:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20021121025601.11978.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: tm <tm@mail.kloo.net>
Subject: Re: bootstrap/6225: [x86 x sh-elf] reload1.c failure
Reply-To: tm <tm@mail.kloo.net>
X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg01180.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR bootstrap/6225; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: tm <tm@mail.kloo.net>
To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
	gniibe@m17n.org, jh@suse.cz, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, tm@kloo.net,
	gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: bootstrap/6225: [x86 x sh-elf] reload1.c failure
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:45:21 -0800 (PST)

 On 21 Nov 2002 bangerth@dealii.org wrote:
 
 > Old Synopsis: reload1.c failure for sh-elf.  Bootstrap failure on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu
 > New Synopsis: [x86 x sh-elf] reload1.c failure
 > 
 > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
 > State-Changed-By: bangerth
 > State-Changed-When: Wed Nov 20 18:08:49 2002
 > State-Changed-Why:
 >     This is a rather old bootstrap failure. Can you please check
 >     whether this still happens with newer versions of gcc and
 >     report back to us what you find?
 >     
 >     Has the patch you mention in your report been applied in
 >     the meantime?
 >     
 >     Thanks
 >       Wolfgang
 > 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6225
 > 
 
 I've tested the testcase against CVS head, specifically:
 
 gcc version 3.3 20021119 (experimental)
 
 and the resultant output code compiled with -O2 seems correct:
 
 .L232:
         .loc 1 288 0
         mov     #64,r6
         add     r14,r6
         mov.l   @(12,r6),r0
         mov.l   @(8,r6),r6
         sub     r6,r0
         mov     #64,r6
         add     r14,r6
         mov.l   r0,@(8,r6)    <- r14 + 64 + 8 = r14 + 72 = correct
 
 This seems ok to close.
 
 Toshi