https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19165
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87089
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87089
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r266001 PASS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59634
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
r265896 might have affected this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59634
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Tue Nov 13 03:40:53 2018
New Revision: 266048
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266048&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-13 Sandra Loosemore
PR middle-end/59634
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57700
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49674
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47823
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47823
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Tue Nov 13 02:06:30 2018
New Revision: 266043
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266043&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-12 Sandra Loosemore
PR preprocessor/47823
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88000
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88000
Dominik Czarnota changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88000
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88000
Bug ID: 88000
Summary: Different local vars regs order may produce different
and so wrong code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87999
Bug ID: 87999
Summary: Constexpr eval. in static_assert makes string_view
comparison non constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
If you want the modern process for building a cross toolchain for a
GNU/Linux (or GNU/Hurd) target, look at how glibc's build-many-glibcs.py
does it. (This is not saying you need to use bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86677
--- Comment #13 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Mon Nov 12 23:43:56 2018
New Revision: 266039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-11-13 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87528
--- Comment #7 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Mon Nov 12 23:43:56 2018
New Revision: 266039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-11-13 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87824
--- Comment #8 from Johannes Pfau ---
Thanks to both of you for the advice. So we should probably enable 32bit
multilib testing on semaphore or buildkite then.
Back to this bug report:
-
FAIL: libphobos.shared/loadDR.c -ldl -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87998
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #2 from Marti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87998
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like the alias is bound to the initial value area which is mapped into
the memory so when a thread is started that value can be used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87998
Bug ID: 87998
Summary: defining an alias for a TLS variable
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87442
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Nov 12 21:01:38 2018
New Revision: 266037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Instrument only selected files (PR gcov-profile/87442).
2018-11-12 Mart
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87442
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87903
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87903
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Nov 12 20:58:02 2018
New Revision: 266036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266036&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix documentation of __builtin_cpu_is and __builtin_cpu_supports for x86.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85982
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Fritz Reese -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87997
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2018-11-12
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87997
Bug ID: 87997
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in cp_var_mod_type_p at
gcc/cp/cp-objcp-common.c:107 since r265870
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87993
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Changed between 20181028 and 20181104 (ICE).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
Actually, no long division needed, broken with a plain move as well:
__attribute__((weak))
int f(void)
{
int o=0, i;
for (i=0; i<3; i++) {
register int a asm("eax");
a = 1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87994
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
> Should be valid code, ...
Whoops, suboptimal. Better examples :
$ cat z3.f90
program p
real, parameter :: a = 1.0
data b /a%kind/
end
$ cat z4.f90
program p
integer, parameter :: a = 1
integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87996
Jozef Lawrynowicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44992|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87996
Bug ID: 87996
Summary: [8/9 Regression] "size of array is negative" error
when SIZE_MAX/2 < sizeof(array) <= SIZE_MAX
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81800
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87995
Bug ID: 87995
Summary: [9 regression]
libgomp.c/../libgomp.c-c++-common/cancel-taskgroup-3.c
fails consistently after r265930
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87994
Bug ID: 87994
Summary: ICE in match_data_constant, at fortran/decl.c:399
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87993
Bug ID: 87993
Summary: ICE in gfc_constructor_first, at
fortran/constructor.c:234
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87945
--- Comment #2 from G. Steinmetz ---
z1.90 above should be _invalid_ code, because a type parameter
inquiry can never be assigned a value, and should not be on LHS.
An aequivalent example :
$ cat z4.f90
program p
character :: a, b
a%len =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #10 from Gary Mills ---
Thanks for the explanation. It's entirely possible that the intermediate gcc
was miss-compiled because of excessive optimization.
I tried building gcc-7.3.0 with -O1 for 32-bit SPARC only, and got the same
IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21110
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21110
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Mon Nov 12 19:08:37 2018
New Revision: 266035
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266035&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-12 Sandra Loosemore
PR middle-end/21110
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression]|store-merging
|store-m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87859
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 44991
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44991&action=edit
gcc9-pr87859.patch
This is the approach I had my mind. For *_24.c it makes no difference, but for
*_25.c, ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85925
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Sorry, I forgot. Here is the correct data:
alpha 100.834%
arm 100.040%
c6x 100.000%
csky 100.039%
h8300 100.000%
i386 100.000%
micro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Both of our (Red Hat internal) build servers have been upgraded to Fedora 29 so
we don't see the failures anymore but they will still com up on systems with
older Binutils. Is it possible to add some sort o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81824
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Nov 12 18:02:41 2018
New Revision: 266034
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266034&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81824 - Warn for missing attributes with function aliases
gcc/tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81824
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks. The test needed dg-require-ifunc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87992
Bug ID: 87992
Summary: ICE in resolve_fl_variable, at fortran/resolve.c:12314
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87991
Bug ID: 87991
Summary: ICE in gfc_constructor_append_expr, at
fortran/constructor.c:135
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79738
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Correct: r255469 didn't change the semantics of either of the two attributes
(it just rejects declarations that use both).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #6)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> > > (In reply to Wilco from comment #3)
> > > > IRA costing doesn't consider
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The warnings are gone between revisions r265814 and r265942.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78492
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #4 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68717
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The warnings are gone between revisions r265814 and r265942.
From comment 1
> As discussed in the other related PR, those are real issues -
> Fortran frontend should not declare one function with m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #5)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #3)
> > > IRA costing doesn't consider the possibility of a simple move being
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #5 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #3)
> > IRA costing doesn't consider the possibility of a simple move being
> > removeable.
>
> Not always, yeah (only if you have m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87918
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2018-11-07 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87945
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87881
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Related to/duplicate of pr87945?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87918
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87921
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87990
Tomáš Ženčák changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tomas.zencak at seznam dot cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87990
Bug ID: 87990
Summary: using Base::operator= wrongly introduces user-declared
move assignment operator
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87989
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87989
Bug ID: 87989
Summary: Calling operator T() invokes wrong conversion operator
overload
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87815
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Executable testcase suitable for bisecting, aborts with -O2 -m32
__attribute__((weak))
int f(long long x[])
{
int o=0, i;
for (i=0; i<3; i++) {
register int a asm("eax");
a = x[0]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87815
--- Comment #1 from Renlin Li ---
Author: renlin
Date: Mon Nov 12 16:47:24 2018
New Revision: 266033
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266033&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR87815]Don't generate shift sequence for load replacement in DSE when the
m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87899
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
I wonder if we can close this based on fact that it only reproduces on
sufficiently old binutils and we simply can't support incremental linking on
these?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #3)
> IRA costing doesn't consider the possibility of a simple move being
> removeable.
Not always, yeah (only if you have matching constraints, which are silly to
have f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87977
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87988
Bug ID: 87988
Summary: [9 regression] Streaming of ABSTRACT_ORIGIN is
expensive
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87987
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87963
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87987
Bug ID: 87987
Summary: Missed optimization with ranged-for loop on a
constexpr array
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87963
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Nov 12 15:25:40 2018
New Revision: 266032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/87963 fix build for 64-bit mingw
PR libstdc++/87963
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69502
--- Comment #5 from Sven ---
(In reply to sandra from comment #4)
> Fixed on trunk.
It's good thing that the documentation reflects the behavior of gcc.
But on the other hand, having the align attribute work in both directions is a
bad idea, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81824
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78444
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10)
> BTW: probably related to this PR, I have seen following kludge in
> i386/darwin.h:
>
> #define STACK_BOUNDARY \
> ((profile_flag || TARGET_64BIT_MS_ABI) ? 128 :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87769
Mateusz Zych changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78444
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
BTW: probably related to this PR, I have seen following kludge in
i386/darwin.h:
#define STACK_BOUNDARY \
((profile_flag || TARGET_64BIT_MS_ABI) ? 128 : BITS_PER_WORD)
It looks that profile_flag is there d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87985
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
diff --git a/gcc/tree-data-ref.c b/gcc/tree-data-ref.c
index 6019c6168bf..d60d389fa0a 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-data-ref.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-data-ref.c
@@ -682,7 +684,8 @@ split_constant_offset_1 (tree type, tree o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78444
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> > > for sysV5 psABI targets, the call site requirement is 64 for m32 and
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87830
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please send the patch to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org for review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87985
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
It's split_constant_offset creating the large tree...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87985
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81878
--- Comment #53 from Alexandre Oliva ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg00930.html
Hi Jason /Nathan ,
We are able to fix the below issue and would like to hear any comments
/ suggestions will be appreciated.
Thank you
~Umesh
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 5:07 PM umesh.kalappa0 at gmail dot com
wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
>
> Umesh Kalappa changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
Umesh Kalappa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||umesh.kalappa0 at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87986
Bug ID: 87986
Summary: Assembler errors w/ -masm=intel
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: assemble-failure
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87881
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Hi Dominique,
I am just back from a business trip to the US. I will attend to this bug asap.
Thanks
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78444
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> > for sysV5 psABI targets, the call site requirement is 64 for m32 and 126/256
> > for m64.
> sysV5 requires 128bit alignm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78444
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> for sysV5 psABI targets, the call site requirement is 64 for m32 and 126/256
> for m64.
sysV5 requires 128bit alignment at the call site, but on linux no runtime
mech
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87983
--- Comment #1 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
FYI: I filed a bug with clang for the same feature:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39635
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78444
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> > So, what we want to achieve here?
> AFAICS, the compiler figures out that the called function requires only
> 64bit alig
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
