https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114756
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Basically what is happening is the linker relaxation code is turning it into
something which is wrong. But GCC's invalid use of %lo(n+4)(a5) with a
(invalid) corresponding %hi(n) is confusing the relaxation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114756
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114756
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
lui a5,%hi(n)
lw a2,%lo(n)(a5)
lw a3,%lo(n+4)(a5)
vs:
lui a5,%hi(.LANCHOR0)
addia5,a5,%lo(.LANCHOR0)
lw a2,0(a5)
lw a3
