From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-33751-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9306 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2003 06:56:01 -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 9291 invoked by uid 71); 29 Apr 2003 06:56:00 -0000
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 06:56:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030429065600.9290.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: amylaar@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: "Naveen Sharma, Noida" <naveens@noida.hcltech.com>
Subject: Re: target/9594: [3.3/3.4 regression] [sh4-elf] Assembler complai
	ns pcrel too far.
Reply-To: "Naveen Sharma, Noida" <naveens@noida.hcltech.com>
X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01321.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR target/9594; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Naveen Sharma, Noida" <naveens@noida.hcltech.com>
To: amylaar@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
        nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
        "Sanjiv Kumar Gupta, Noida"
	 <sanjivg@noida.hcltech.com>,
        gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: kkojima@gcc.gnu.org, aoliva@redhat.com
Subject: Re: target/9594: [3.3/3.4 regression] [sh4-elf] Assembler complai
	ns pcrel too far.
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:09:27 +0530

 Hi,
  
 > Synopsis: [3.3/3.4 regression] [sh4-elf] Assembler complains 
 > pcrel too far.
 > 
 > Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->amylaar
 > Responsible-Changed-By: amylaar
 > Responsible-Changed-When: Mon Apr 28 13:07:29 2003
 > Responsible-Changed-Why:
 >     Because I fixed this problem.
 > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
 > State-Changed-By: amylaar
 > State-Changed-When: Mon Apr 28 13:07:29 2003
 > State-Changed-Why:
 >     Fixed on 15th April in mainline and 3.3 branch.
 > 
 > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&
 > database=gcc&pr=9594
 
 Thanks, 
 The patch fixes the problem. So this PR may be closed
 
 On a related note, I notice that gcc is known to generate 
 out of bound branches for SH.
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-01/msg00818.html
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2002-06/msg00896.html
 
 From the discussion thread following the latter, it seems 
 there needs to be some design changes to solve these sort 
 of problems. In this message
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-11/msg00192.html
 
 You suggest to "marry" the local constant pool generation 
 with an early branch shortening pass.
 
 I would like to analyse this more, and implement it, if this can 
 avoid problems of this nature. What do you think ?
 
 Best Regards,
   Naveen Sharma.