Hey GCConauts,
I've noticed some strange behavior in gcc > 5.
unsigned int hmmm5(unsigned int a, unsigned int b, unsigned int c)
{
return a + (b << c << c << c << c << c);
}
This function compiles how you'd expect:
mov ecx, edx
sal esi, cl
sal esi, cl
sal esi, cl
sal esi, cl
sal esi, cl
lea
Hello,
Compiling with "-march=armv7-a -mtune=cortex-a15 -mbe8" produces code
that appears to change the order of words. For example, the word-wise
optimized strcpy in musl changes "/dev/fd/" into "/fd//dev". Removing
"mtune=cortex-a15" works around the problem. Presumably this is due to
some instr
Hi Jim,
That becomes a bit harder when there are many many items:
https://git.zx2c4.com/WireGuard/tree/src/crypto/zinc/selftest/chacha20poly1305.h#n87
Here I'd like to use compound literals to avoid wasting space, as
several members are variably sized. Unfortunately I can't do that per
https://g
Hi Jim,
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:39 PM Jim Wilson wrote:
> The
> compound literal could have an address, but we don't have a way to
> attach attributes to compound literals.
Thanks for the confirmation of the problem.
> Since your testcase already has a symbol in the right section, you could
Hello,
I'd like to have a compound literal exist inside a certain linker
section. However, it doesn't appear to work as I'd like:
#define __stuffdata __attribute__((__section__("stuff")))
const u8 works[] __stuffdata = { 0x1, 0x2, 0x3, 0x4 };
const u8 *breaks = (const u8[] __stuffdata){ 0x1, 0x2,
/*
*
* The output of this with gcc 4.7.2 is:
*
* 1
* 2
* this generic-int function should not be called
* 0
*
*
*
* The output of this with gcc 4.6.3 is:
*
* 1
* 2
* this type-bool function SHOULD BE called
* 1
*
*/
#include
#include
#include
#include
struct Type { int dummy
