* Martin Sebor:
> At the same time, the following passes on x86_64:
>
> __attribute__ ((aligned (1))) void f1 (void) { }
> _Static_assert (__alignof__ (f1) == 1); // wrong alignof result
>
> __attribute__ ((aligned)) void f0 (void) { }
> _Static_assert (__alignof__ (f0) == 16);
>
> __a
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:37 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 11/26/18 1:30 PM, cmdLP #CODE wrote:
> > Dear GCC-developer team,
> >
> > The specification of the const-attribute is a bit ambiguous, it does not
> > fully specify which global variables are allowed to be read from. Obviously
> > constan
On 11/28/18 6:04 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Martin Sebor:
At the same time, the following passes on x86_64:
__attribute__ ((aligned (1))) void f1 (void) { }
_Static_assert (__alignof__ (f1) == 1); // wrong alignof result
__attribute__ ((aligned)) void f0 (void) { }
_Static_asse
I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
Here is the original:
if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
{
x = x + y;
}
return x;
This ends up generating a series of instructions to compute a flag with
the result of the condition followed by a single comp
On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
> I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
> Here is the original:
>
> if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
> {
> x = x + y;
> }
> return x;
>
> This ends up generating a series of instructions to compute a f
Hi Siddhartha,
On Tue, Nov 27 2018, Siddhartha Sen wrote:
> I am Siddhartha Sen,currently pursuing my B.Tech degree in Information
> Science and Engineering,2nd year. I have taken a keen interest in your
> projects and have some ideas of my own as well. I am really interested in
> working with you
On 11/28/18 09:10, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
Here is the original:
if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
{
x = x + y;
}
return x;
This ends up generating a series of inst
On 11/28/18 10:47 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 11/28/18 09:10, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
>>> I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
>>> Here is the original:
>>>
>>> if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
>>> {
>>> x =
On 11/28/18 6:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:52 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01759.html
If there are no objections or suggestions for tweaks I'll commit
this updated comment this week.
Please do not commit such changes w/
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:47 AM Michael Eager wrote:
>
> On 11/28/18 09:10, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 11/28/18 10:00 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
> >> I have a small test case which generates poor quality code on my target.
> >> Here is the original:
> >>
> >>if (cond1 == 2048 || cond2 == 8)
> >>
On 11/28/18 11:39 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/28/18 6:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:52 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01759.html
>>>
>>> If there are no objections or suggestions for tweaks I'll commit
>>> this upd
On 11/27/18 11:57 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/26/18 3:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/23/18 12:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> GCC currently accepts the declaration of f0 below but ignores
>>> the attribute. On aarch64 (and I presume on other targets with
>>> a default function alignment greate
12 matches
Mail list logo
