From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20194 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2011 17:16:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 20186 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Aug 2011 17:16:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:16:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7IHGVe8028811 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:16:31 -0400 Received: from pebble.twiddle.home (vpn-229-230.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.229.230]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7IHGVSP014638; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:16:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4E4D48EA.8060801@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:16:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110621 Fedora/3.1.11-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Pinski CC: GCC Mailing List Subject: Re: Fwd: C6X fails to build in FSF mainline References: <4E4D2CCC.7040106@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4E4D2CCC.7040106@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00345.txt.bz2 On 08/18/2011 08:16 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 08/17/2011 06:45 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> gcc/libgcc2.c: In function ‘__gnu_mulsc3’: >> gcc/libgcc2.c:1928:1: internal compiler error: in scan_trace, at >> dwarf2cfi.c:2433 >> Please submit a full bug report, >> >> I assume that it is because the C6X has more than one delay slot ? > > Ug. I knew c6x has more than 1 delay slot (indeed, 5). > But I'd hoped that they were not annulled. ... and it doesn't. The problem is that RTL_CONST_CALL_P and INSN_ANNULLED_BRANCH_P use the same bit. Sigh. r~