From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Received: (qmail 24073 invoked by uid 71); 11 Jan 2003 10:06:05 -0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 10:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030111100605.24072.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Jan Hubicka Subject: Re: target/9068: [3.4 regression] [x86] comisd & comiss constraints are incorrect Reply-To: Jan Hubicka X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00709.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/9068; it has been noted by GNATS. >>From jh@suse.cz Mon Jan 13 00:57:26 2003 From: Jan Hubicka To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, jh@suse.cz, kelleycook@comcast.net, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: target/9068: [3.4 regression] [x86] comisd & comiss constraints are incorrect Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 11:05:02 +0100 > Old Synopsis: [x86] comisd & comiss intel-syntax constraints are incorrect > New Synopsis: [3.4 regression] [x86] comisd & comiss constraints are incorrect > > State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed > State-Changed-By: bangerth > State-Changed-When: Fri Jan 10 16:32:10 2003 > State-Changed-Why: > Confirmed. This also happens on x86-linux, and has nothing > to do with intel asm syntax, since I can reproduce it > with this smaller testcase > ---------------------------------- > int foo(int count, double sum) { > return (sum/count > 0.0000001); > } > -------------------------------- > and the following (shorter) command line: > tmp/g> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.4-pre/bin/c++ -msse2 x.c > x.c: In function `int foo(int, double)': > x.c:3: internal compiler error: in get_attr_length_immediate, at insn-attrtab.c > :22751 > Please submit a full bug report, This should be independent problem I fixed yesterday. > > This is a regression w.r.t. 3.3, where things worked, > although probably more by chance. > Jan, you are the author of the hunk of code that the patch > in this report touches. Can you comment on its validity? > > Thinking more about it, the original report probably > was about this code (which indeed fails only with intel > asm syntax): > ----------------------------- > int foo(double sum) { > return (sum > 0.0000001); > } > ------------------------------- > tmp/g> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.4-pre/bin/c++ -msse2 -Wall -march=pentium4 -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse -masm=intel x.c > x.c: In function `int foo(double)': > x.c:3: internal compiler error: output_operand: operand number missing after > %-letter > Please submit a full bug report, I will fix this too. Honza