Hi Richard,
You never responded to this. Is there something wrong with this fix?
Can you address whether it's sufficient for align_loops > align_labels
and such cases that Julian Brown raised?
A patch against the current trunk is below.
Thanks,
Roland
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Roland M
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Julian Brown wrote:
> FWIW, I've hit this issue in the past, and used a patch as follows to
> fix it:
>
> @@ -12015,7 +12025,10 @@ create_fix_barrier (Mfix *fix, HOST_WIDE
>gcc_assert (GET_CODE (from) != BARRIER);
>
>/* Count the length of this insn.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:57:40 +0100
Julian Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:43:33 -0700
> Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > Using e.g. -falign-labels=16 on ARM can confuse the constant-pool
> > layout code such that it places pool entries too far away from their
> > referring instructions. This ch
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:43:33 -0700
Roland McGrath wrote:
> Using e.g. -falign-labels=16 on ARM can confuse the constant-pool
> layout code such that it places pool entries too far away from their
> referring instructions. This change seems to fix it.
>
> I don't have a small test case, only a la
Using e.g. -falign-labels=16 on ARM can confuse the constant-pool layout
code such that it places pool entries too far away from their referring
instructions. This change seems to fix it.
I don't have a small test case, only a large one, which I haven't actually
tried to get to reproduce on any v
