2012/8/11 Georg-Johann Lay <a...@gjlay.de>: > Weddington, Eric schrieb: >>> >>> From: Georg-Johann Lay >>> >>> >>> The first step would be to bisect and find the patch that lead to >>> PR53923. It was not a change in the avr BE, so the question goes >>> to the authors of the respective patch. >>> >>> Up to now I didn't even try to bisect; that would take years on the >>> host that I have available... >>> >>>> My only real concern is that this is a major feature addition and >>>> the AVR port is currently broken. >>> >>> >>> I don't know if it's the avr port or some parts of the middle end that >>> don't cooperate with avr. >> >> >> I would really, really love to see fixed point support added in, >> especially since I know that Sean has worked on it for quite a while, >> and you've also done a lot of work in getting the patches in shape to >> get them committed. >> >> But, if the AVR port is currently broken (by whomever, and whatever >> patch) and a major feature like this can't be tested to make sure it >> doesn't break anything else in the AVR backend, then I'm hesitant to >> approve (even though I really want to approve). > > > I don't understand enough of DF to fix PR53923. The insn that leads > to the ICE is (in df-problems.c:dead_debug_insert_temp): >
Today I have updated GCC svn tree and successfully compiled avr-gcc. The libgcc2-mulsc3.c from PR53923 also compiled without bugs. Denis. PS: May be I'm doing something wrong ? (I had too long vacations)
