--- Comment #8 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-09 07:55 ---
I think I found what was the problem, the flags
-mthumb -mcpu=arm966e-s -Os -falign-functions=4
Did not 32-bit-align my thumb->arm trampoline function.
I dont know if -Os win over -fal
--- Comment #6 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-06 12:06 ---
Yes you are right, unfortunately I just had problems to break out any small
test case from our sources.
I think I found out what is the source of the problems.
The "-Os" disable al
--- Comment #4 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-06 09:09 ---
Hm, I now tried to disable all possible optimization flags, but still "-Os"
does not work, but "-O2" still works!
Does the "-Os" option do anything more that is
--- Comment #3 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-06 08:36 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Have you tried compiling with -fno-strict-aliasing ?
I've tried it now, and it made no difference I'm afraid.
The code got slightly bigger, but behavio
--- Comment #1 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-06 07:20 ---
Created an attachment (id=21421)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21421&action=view)
Script to build arm-elf toolchain
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
966e-s
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
GCC targ
--- Comment #5 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2008-12-01 13:35 ---
On Intel i386-GCC (4.2.3) we just get warning only for the line
if (c1 == ~c2)
The other lines does not give warnings, so maybe its just the ARM-backend that
catch this warning.
I guess
--- Comment #4 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2008-12-01 12:55 ---
Heres another example, then I do not think the warnings are due to
optimization.
I have same warnings with both -O0 and -O3.
#include
typedef unsigned char u8_t;
void test_cast(unsigned
--- Comment #2 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2008-12-01 12:40 ---
Then why dont we get warning on the first if-statement?
Shouldnt these lines be equal?
if (c1 == (unsigned char)(~c2)) {
}
if (u1 == (u8_t)(~u2)) { // THIS WILL GIVE WARNING
}
The
rm -fr "$BINUTILS_DIR" "$GCC_DIR" "$NEWLIB_DIR" "$GDB_DIR" "$INSIGHT_DIR" build
--
Summary: Wrong warning comparison of promoted ~unsigned with
unsigned
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: arm-elf-gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38341
10 matches
Mail list logo
