https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61257
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420
--- Comment #5 from Bin Meng ---
Thanks Andrew. That makes sense!
I wonder whether there is a way to teach GCC not to generate code for such
radical optimization that it can't relocate when using "-O2", on all
architectures :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Waterman ---
In -O2, the compiler materializes ("x" + INT_MIN) by loading that
symbol+offset into a register in one shot, whereas in -O0 it loads the
address of "x" into a register, then adds INT_MIN to that register.
T
In -O2, the compiler materializes ("x" + INT_MIN) by loading that
symbol+offset into a register in one shot, whereas in -O0 it loads the
address of "x" into a register, then adds INT_MIN to that register.
The same phenomenon happens in the x86-64 -mcmodel=kernel case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420
--- Comment #3 from Bin Meng ---
Thanks Andrew for the quick response!
Agreed, that it's caused by the current code model limitation of RISC-V.
However I was wondering why passing "-O0" could make the linking pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Waterman ---
The RISC-V code models currently in existence place a 2 GiB limit on
the extent of the statically linked portion of a binary. Rather than
a bug, I would describe this as a limitation of the existing code
m
The RISC-V code models currently in existence place a 2 GiB limit on
the extent of the statically linked portion of a binary. Rather than
a bug, I would describe this as a limitation of the existing code
models, which we should eventually lift by introducing larger code
models.
Note that it's pos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420
--- Comment #1 from Bin Meng ---
Created attachment 46701
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46701&action=edit
test log of "riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu-g++ -v -save-temps -O2 riscv_cpp_test.c"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91418
--- Comment #4 from Darrell Wright ---
The weird part is, other than compilers don't agree, but the lookup finds it if
you put the template argument in
template
struct A {
auto func( ) {
class B {
B( ) = default;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420
Bug ID: 91420
Summary: relocation truncated to fit: R_RISCV_HI20 against
`.LC0' with GCC 8.2/8.3 on RISC-V
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91418
--- Comment #3 from Harald van Dijk ---
I believe GCC is correct here. [class.friend]p11
(http://eel.is/c++draft/class.friend#11) specifies that `friend class A;`, with
an unqualified name, does not find the global scope class A, but makes a (nev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90834
fink at snaggledworks dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fink at snaggledworks dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91416
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||GC, patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88180
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29931
--- Comment #11 from Harald van Dijk ---
Thinking about this a bit more, the logic should probably be: pick a file known
to exist. libgcc.a could be a good candidate, but there could be better
options. Look this up twice, once following symlinks,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90108
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88180
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83997
Bug 83997 depends on bug 83300, which changed state.
Bug 83300 Summary: Segmentation fault with template and
__attribute__((vector_size (sizeof(int) * N)));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83300
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83300
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91376
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #11)
>> > --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
>> > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-biel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91413
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Sun Aug 11 09:42:41 2019
New Revision: 274264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/91413 Generate warning when making array static
When moving a l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91414
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91418
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
23 matches
Mail list logo
