Am 23.08.2013 00:26, schrieb Thorsten Glaser: > Matthias Klose dixit: > >> yes, I do reject this. > > I see. Would you please… > >>> “for the time being”? If so, would you accept a patch >>> that just disables -fauto-inc-dec on m68k *always*, >>> even in the cases where it doesn’t ICE? (one-liner) > > answer whether this would be considerable? (Untested, > but should have the desired effect, right Mikael?) > > --- a/src/gcc/common.opt > +++ b/src/gcc/common.opt > @@ -858,7 +858,7 @@ Common Report Var(flag_asynchronous_unwi > Generate unwind tables that are exact at each instruction boundary > > fauto-inc-dec > -Common Report Var(flag_auto_inc_dec) Init(1) > +Common Report Var(flag_auto_inc_dec) Init(0) > Generate auto-inc/dec instructions > > ; -fcheck-bounds causes gcc to generate array bounds checks. > > Or maybe this one (although it’s got the malus that it can’t > be re-enabled for testing): > > --- a/src/gcc/config/m68k/m68k.c > +++ b/src/gcc/config/m68k/m68k.c > @@ -663,6 +663,8 @@ m68k_override_options_after_change (void > flag_schedule_insns_after_reload = 0; > flag_modulo_sched = 0; > } > + /* PR52306 */ > + flag_auto_inc_dec = 0; > } > > /* Generate a macro of the form __mPREFIX_cpu_NAME, where PREFIX is the > >> not many thanks for trying to sneak in this into the >> Debian package. > > I’m just forwarding what we use in production. This is > really necessary right now to work around bugs with the > GNU Chagrin Collection. > > Apparently just always disabling optimisation is the > way, not just when it is problematic…
I think, setting the flag for the option to 0 as the default, and applying this for m68k only would be the second best option, provided that you cannot find out how to implement Mikael's suggestion. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/521e1899.2080...@debian.org
