"dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
>
> --- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
> (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #6)
>> The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b258e263e0d74ca1f76a
"dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99126
>
> David Malcolm changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
> Status|NEW
This is the bt of how the C front-end is initializing these
declarations:
#0 set_builtin_decl (implicit_p=,
decl=,
fncode=) at ../../gcc/tree.h:5662
#1 def_builtin_1 (fncode=, name=,
fntype=, libtype=, both_p=,
fallback_p=, nonansi_p=false,
fnattrs=, implicit_p=true,
fn
Following suggestions I'm testing the attached emitting the following
for long branches where LE cannot cover:
subslr, #1
bmi .L2
>From 0cd38cb29829b48f96e8e060e7a875f49236b67b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrea Corallo
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:21:54 +0100
Subject: [PA
Right I'll rework the patch.
Thanks
I'm testing the attached fix.
>From 6de0603f3a5c86396d44250cb34d4451528681b1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrea Corallo
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:21:54 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm: Add low overhead loop address range check [PR98931]
2021-02-03 Andrea Corallo
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_
"jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98931
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> And the problem is not something not being multiple of 2, but just out of
> range
> jump. The code has:
> 10: f04e e001 dls lr,
I see what's going on, originally this object-size text <= 20 test was
gated with target 'arm_thumb2'.
My patch to exclude LOB targets replaced that with
'arm_thumb2_ok_no_arm_v8_1_lob', unfortunatelly this is relying on
'arm_thumb2_ok' that has a different semantic compared to the original
'arm_t
"marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
>
> --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #7)
>> Thanks Martin, I can confirm that also the bootstrap is back okay.
>
> You're welcome.
> Can you please
Thanks Martin, I can confirm that also the bootstrap is back okay.
Thank you for looking into it! I tried my self but with no success
"acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
>
> --- Comment #9 from Alex Coplan ---
> Thanks for fixing this Andrea! FWIW I can reproduce the ICE with the same
> testcase and options on the head of the GCC 10 branch (contrary to my first
"rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
>
> --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> (In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #5)
>> "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
>> writes:
>>
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org
"rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs"
writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
>
> --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> (In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #3)
>> Created attachment 49710 [details]
>> PR97092.patch
>>
>> What is going on is that
What is going on is that in 'update_costs_from_allocno' we try to
identify the smallest mode using narrower_subreg_mode to then update the
costs.
The two modes involved here are E_DImode and E_VNx2QImode, cause these
are not ordered we ICE in 'paradoxical_subreg_p'.
Now I don't know if the strate
"akrl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97092
>
> --- Comment #1 from akrl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Hi all,
>
> I can't reproduce this on current master (76a1719f0ff), I guess has been
> fixed in the meanwhile?
As not said I swapped two repr
16 matches
Mail list logo
