From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26152 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2002 16:53:02 -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 26132 invoked by uid 61); 10 Dec 2002 16:53:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021210165301.26131.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, marcusma@lsl.co.uk, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de Reply-To: ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, marcusma@lsl.co.uk, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: target/7493: [SPRAC] Possible instruction jump too large for assembler. X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00557.txt.bz2 List-Id: Old Synopsis: Possible instruction jump too large for assembler. New Synopsis: [SPRAC] Possible instruction jump too large for assembler. State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback State-Changed-By: cae State-Changed-When: Tue Dec 10 08:52:59 2002 State-Changed-Why: The problem in the assembler output is an instructions sequence like this on sparc: call f,0 add %o7,(.LL100-.-4),%o7 which is compiled by GNU as without a warning even if the result of .LL100-.-4 is larger than 4095, SUN as complains about the error though. However, I can't get gcc to produce such assemble code. I did a few tests with 3.3. and 2.95.3 but gcc always detected that the jump distance is more than what can be added to o7 with a single add instruction and replaced the add with a ``nop; b,a .LL100'' sequence. To debug this further we'll need a self contained testcase, i.e. preprocessed source (see -save-temps option, the .i file is what we're interested in). Due to the nature of the bug a single function (with everything it needs to compile!) will probably suffice as a useful testcase. regards Christian Ehrhardt http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7493