[Bug c/118836] sso warning dependend on -fno-builtin

2025-02-12 Thread george.thopas at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118836 --- Comment #2 from George Thopas --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > This is by design; without -fno-builtin, memcmp, memset, etc. become normal > functions and they have unknown behaviors. The only solution to get rid of the war

[Bug c/118836] New: sso warning dependend on -fno-builtin

2025-02-11 Thread george.thopas at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118836 Bug ID: 118836 Summary: sso warning dependend on -fno-builtin Product: gcc Version: 14.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/101925] New: reversed storage order when compiling with -O3 only

2021-08-15 Thread george.thopas at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101925 Bug ID: 101925 Summary: reversed storage order when compiling with -O3 only Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug c/100653] usage of scalar_storage_order produces incorrect result

2021-06-15 Thread george.thopas at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100653 --- Comment #9 from George Thopas --- Created attachment 51025 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51025&action=edit avoid eliminating fields with different endianess as equal Short story : Ran a bisect to find why this always

[Bug c/100920] bogus warnings with -Wscalar-storage-order

2021-06-08 Thread george.thopas at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100920 --- Comment #9 from George Thopas --- /* Hi Eric, 1) I noticed there's a typo in the test, (which is my fault) and may give unexpected behavior later on memcpy(msg2, &msg1, sizeof(t_s12)); => should be memcpy(msg2, msg1, sizeof(t_

[Bug c/100920] bogus warnings with -Wscalar-storage-order

2021-06-07 Thread george.thopas at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100920 --- Comment #6 from George Thopas --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5) > Thanks for reporting the problem. Thanks for the swift fix. It nicely resolves it for the malloc/alloca ... It doesn't seem to do anything for the rest of the

[Bug c/100920] bogus warnings with -Wscalar-storage-order

2021-06-05 Thread george.thopas at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100920 --- Comment #2 from George Thopas --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1) > The warning on the union is indeed an oversight, but the other is > conservatively correct, although we may make a special case for > __builtin_alloca. Hi Eric,

[Bug c/100920] New: bogus warn on -Wscalar-storage-order

2021-06-04 Thread george.thopas at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100920 Bug ID: 100920 Summary: bogus warn on -Wscalar-storage-order Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/100804] storage order swapped with specific opt

2021-05-27 Thread george.thopas at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100804 --- Comment #2 from George Thopas --- After looking at the updated documentation and trying the an update kernel with warning it still leaves some things open. The updated documentation says: "Moreover, the use of type punning or aliasing to

[Bug c/100804] New: storage order swapped with specific opt

2021-05-27 Thread george.thopas at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100804 Bug ID: 100804 Summary: storage order swapped with specific opt Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c