[Bug c++/120955] [15/16 Regression] 50 % increase in data segment size on avr-gcc for -Os

2025-07-17 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955 --- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Just to make sure I am getting it right. With avr-gcc v15.1 / trunk, I am getting a data size of: $ avr-size -G b-ii-15.o text databss total filename 2688194

[Bug middle-end/87695] Arduino: ICE with avr and LTO

2025-07-16 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|WAITING

[Bug other/117914] [reload][avr] In function __objc_add_class_to_hash class-i.c:2162:1: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:

2025-07-14 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117914 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFI

[Bug rtl-optimization/120423] ICE in avr-gcc extract_constrain_insn

2025-07-14 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120423 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug testsuite/120591] SARIF tests depend on (length of) directory name

2025-07-11 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120591 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- One difference is that in my case (for avr) these tests were failing. hmmm, I tried to reproduce it with same source and same options for configure, build and testsuite, but with different length of buil

[Bug rtl-optimization/110093] [12/13/14 Regression][avr] Move frenzy leading to code bloat

2025-07-10 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110093 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15/16 |[12/13/14 Regression][avr]

[Bug c++/120955] [15/16 Regression] 50 % increase in data segment size on avr-gcc for -Os

2025-07-10 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955 --- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay --- So when the issue goes away wihout LTO, then you can't drop -flto obviously.

[Bug c++/120955] [15/16 Regression] 50 % increase in data segment size on avr-gcc for -Os

2025-07-07 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955 --- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to fiesh from comment #6) > Am I doing something wrong? Maybe it has to do with LTO. When you are still using -flto, then the object files only contain LTO byte code except with -ffat-lto-objec

[Bug c++/120955] [15/16 Regression] 50 % increase in data segment size on avr-gcc for -Os

2025-07-05 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120955 --- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to fiesh from comment #3) > Is there some other output, like nm or objdump, that could help? Not very helpful IMO. You can try the following steps: 1) It's unlikely that LTO is essential. Thu

[Bug target/120856] [avr] during RTL pass: split2: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -mno-lra

2025-06-28 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120856 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/120856] [avr] during RTL pass: split2: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -mno-lra

2025-06-28 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120856 --- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #0) > R22:DI. Should read R24:DI.

[Bug target/120856] New: [avr] during RTL pass: split2: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -mno-lra

2025-06-28 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- unsigned long long _Fract func (long f) { return __builtin_avr_ullrbits (f < 0 ? 0 : f); } This test c

[Bug target/113932] [meta-bug] Targets which should be ported to LRA

2025-06-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113932 Bug 113932 depends on bug 113934, which changed state. Bug 113934 Summary: Switch avr to LRA https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug target/113934] Switch avr to LRA

2025-06-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |16.0 Resolution|---

[Bug target/113934] Switch avr to LRA

2025-06-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113934 Bug 113934 depends on bug 118591, which changed state. Bug 118591 Summary: [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra in pr43879-3.c https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118591 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug middle-end/56183] [meta-bug][avr] Problems with register allocation

2025-06-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56183 Bug 56183 depends on bug 118591, which changed state. Bug 118591 Summary: [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra in pr43879-3.c https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118591 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug rtl-optimization/118591] [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra in pr43879-3.c

2025-06-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118591 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug other/115893] AVR documentation in x86_64 build

2025-06-19 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115893 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/115893] AVR documentation in x86_64 build

2025-06-17 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115893 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5

[Bug rtl-optimization/116389] [15/16 regression] [avr] ICE in extract_constrain_insn for avrtiny and -O2 with ext-dce

2025-06-14 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116389 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/120423] ICE in avr-gcc extract_constrain_insn

2025-06-14 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120423 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug middle-end/56183] [meta-bug][avr] Problems with register allocation

2025-06-14 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56183 Bug 56183 depends on bug 116389, which changed state. Bug 116389 Summary: [15/16 regression] [avr] ICE in extract_constrain_insn for avrtiny and -O2 with ext-dce https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116389 What|Removed

[Bug target/120424] [arm] -fnon-call-exceptions -fstack-clash-protection triggers lra-eliminations bug

2025-06-14 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424 --- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #8) > See > https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/ormsalbaic@lxoliva.fsfla.org/. Thanks for the pointer and sorry for the noise. I missed that it's 2 patches, a

[Bug target/120424] [arm] -fnon-call-exceptions -fstack-clash-protection triggers lra-eliminations bug

2025-06-14 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120424 --- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay --- This patch turns the test cases for gcc.target/avr/torture/pr118591-1.c https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118591#c4 into ICEs: $ make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=atmega128-sim

[Bug testsuite/120591] New: sarif tests depend on (length of) directory name

2025-06-08 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
: testsuite Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- When doing regression tests, I found that a sarif test depends on the directory name of builddir, which leads to extra extra noise in the testsuite results: # Comparing

[Bug target/120423] ICE in avr-gcc extract_constrain_insn

2025-05-30 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120423 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||14.2.0 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Joh

[Bug target/120423] ICE in avr-gcc extract_constrain_insn

2025-05-30 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120423 --- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Created attachment 61553 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61553&action=edit Reduced C test case Here is a reduced C test case: struct data { int a; int b; }; unsigned char v

[Bug target/120423] ICE in avr-gcc extract_constrain_insn

2025-05-30 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120423 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/120442] [avr] fdim is missing from libgcc/avr/libf7

2025-05-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120442 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/120441] [avr] exp returns Inf for x>=512 and 0 for x<=-512 in libgcc/libf7

2025-05-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120441 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/120442] [avr] fdim is missing from libgcc/avr/libf7

2025-05-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120442 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Target||avr Priority|P3

[Bug target/120442] New: [avr] fdim is missing from libgcc/avr/libf7

2025-05-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- fdim is missing from libgcc/avr/libf7

[Bug target/120441] [avr] exp returns Inf for x>=512 and 0 for x<=-512 in libgcc/libf7

2025-05-26 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120441 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Target|

[Bug target/120441] New: [avr] exp returns Inf for x>=512 and 0 for x<=-512 in libgcc/libf7

2025-05-26 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- f7_exp returns Inf for x>=512 and 0 for x<=-512 in libgcc/libf7.

[Bug target/119989] [AVR] Incorrect code generation with __memx pointers when optimization is enabled (-O1 and above) on AVR (ATmega328P)

2025-04-30 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119989 --- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay --- The issue was introduced by the cc0 -> CCmode conversion in r12-226 3ba781d3b5c8efadb60866c9743b657e8f0eb222

[Bug target/119989] [AVR] Incorrect code generation with __memx pointers when optimization is enabled (-O1 and above) on AVR (ATmega328P)

2025-04-30 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119989 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target|Avr

[Bug c/119568] New: [avr] ICE: in find_widening_optab_handler_and_mode, at optabs-query.cc:498

2025-04-01 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- unsigned _Fract p2m1_remez (unsigned _Fract x) { unsigned _Fract a0 = 3.704e-06ur; unsigned _Fract a1 = 6.929e-01ur; unsigned

[Bug c/119568] [avr] ICE: in find_widening_optab_handler_and_mode, at optabs-query.cc:498

2025-04-01 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119568 --- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay --- So the ICE occurs with checking enabled, and otherwise it goes into hog mode: gcc_checking_assert (GET_MODE_CLASS (from_mode) == GET_MODE_CLASS (to_mode) && from_mode < to_mo

[Bug middle-end/119555] New: [avr] const _Fract: Wrong warning: variable 'f0' set but not used

2025-03-31 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
ty: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- This warning seems to only occur when const is specified, and when the variable f0 is a fixed-point type: #define T _Frac

[Bug tree-optimization/119532] [avr] ICE: in build_minus_one_cst with _Accum/_Fract types , at tree.cc:2698

2025-03-31 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119532 --- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6) > Is it a regression? You mean whether there is an older version where it did not ICE? Presumably not, at least with v8 it also ICEs, and with v5.4.0 there

[Bug tree-optimization/119532] [avr] ICE: in build_minus_one_cst with _Accum/_Fract types , at tree.cc:2698

2025-03-31 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119532 --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay --- It also occurs for current v13 and v14 at least.

[Bug middle-end/119532] New: [avr] ICE: in build_minus_one_cst, at tree.cc:2698

2025-03-29 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
Component: middle-end Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- extern _Fract sinuhk_deg (unsigned short _Accum); _Fract cosuhk_deg (unsigned short _Accum deg) { unsigned short _Accum _90_deg = 90uhk; __asm ("" : &qu

[Bug target/117596] avr support for BitInt

2025-03-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117596 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- ...what I currently have for trying is this addition to avr.cc: static bool avr_c_bitint_type_info (int n, struct bitint_info *info) { info->abi_limb_mode = QImode; info->limb_mode = QImode; info->

[Bug target/117596] avr support for BitInt

2025-03-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117596 --- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay --- All I can find is TARGET_C_BITINT_TYPE_INFO. * Where to specify that addition should be implemented by a libgcc function like addbitint3? * There are libgcc modules like _mulbitint3.o but they are empty

[Bug libgcc/119396] libgcc: Shared objects are being built for target that doesn't support shared libs

2025-03-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119396 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-03-27 Status|UNCONF

[Bug libgcc/119396] libgcc: Shared objects are being built for target that doesn't support shared libs

2025-03-27 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119396 --- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay --- As it seems, the following libgcc/Makefile.in rule injects dependencies: $(patsubst %,%.vis,$(LIB1ASMFUNCS)): %.vis: %_s$(objext) $(gen-hide-list) Since the *_s. objects are added to lib1asmfuncs-s-

[Bug target/119421] [avr] Better optimize some operations involving bits

2025-03-22 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119421 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/119421] [avr] Better optimize some operations involving bits

2025-03-21 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119421 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords|

[Bug target/119421] New: [avr] Better optimize some operations involving bits

2025-03-21 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- There are occasions where knowledge about nonzero bits makes some optimizations possible. For example, Rd |= Rn << Off can be implemented as SBRC Rn, 0

[Bug libgcc/119396] libgcc: Shared objects are being built for target that doesn't support shared libs

2025-03-21 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119396 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- What I have already tried is to set SHLIB_LINK := in t-avr, which should imply enable_shared=no. But it had no effect. Also I don't know where SHLIB_LINK should be set. In the top-level configure.ac ?

[Bug libgcc/119396] New: libgcc: Shared objects are being built for target that doesn't support shared libs

2025-03-20 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
IRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgcc Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- On avr, there are libgcc modules build with -DSHARED even though that target doesn't support shared libra

[Bug target/119355] ICE / assertion in "during RTL pass: avr-fuse-move" for avr-linux cross-compiler

2025-03-18 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119355 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/119225] avr-mmcu.texi:15: warning: @anchor should not appear on @item line

2025-03-12 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119225 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- This is the texinfo commit that fixed the issue: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git/commit/?id=f536711c6286a974798affb366d1ba0cc72fa16e

[Bug target/119225] avr-mmcu.texi:15: warning: @anchor should not appear on @item line

2025-03-12 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119225 --- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay --- This is a texinfo bug that has been fixed. Please leave the anchors where they are, they are correct and external links rely on them. See also https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-texinfo/2024-03/msg

[Bug target/119077] gcc option -mint8 leads to undefined reference to `__builtin_avr_delay_cycles'

2025-03-08 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119077 --- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay --- ...I can reproduce it with the following test case and v13: #include extern void __builtin_avr_delay_cycles (uint32_t); #include int main(void) { _delay_ms(100); } So the likely cause is that A

[Bug target/119077] gcc option -mint8 leads to undefined reference to `__builtin_avr_delay_cycles'

2025-03-08 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119077 --- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Still 2 issues: * Your are configuring the compiler in a way not supported by GCC (see my note above). * Pre-processed files are still missing. You can get the i files with -save-temps -g3. With -g3, t

[Bug target/115817] [AVR] Suboptimal code for zeroing SRAM byte from ISR

2025-03-07 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115817 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/119086] __builtin_constant_p is missing opportunities

2025-03-02 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119086 --- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > See pr 26724 and others. > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 26724 *** Thanks for the pointer. Would you explain how that can be used for

[Bug tree-optimization/119086] New: __builtin_constant_p is missing opportunities

2025-03-02 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 60634 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60634&action=edit bic.c: C test case In the attached test case bic.c, there

[Bug target/119077] gcc option -mint8 leads to undefined reference to `__builtin_avr_delay_cycles'

2025-03-02 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119077 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-03-02 Keywords|

[Bug rtl-optimization/101188] [12/13 Regression] [postreload] Uses content of a clobbered register

2025-02-21 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101188 --- Comment #21 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Back then, the patch has been reopened so it won't be forgotten for backporting. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2024-February/243300.html As is seems, no backport will happen?

[Bug middle-end/118889] attribute "common" ignored with -fdata-sections

2025-02-17 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118889 --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay --- ...the respective part of varasm.cc reads: get_variable_section (tree decl, bool prefer_noswitch_p) { ... if (ADDR_SPACE_GENERIC_P (as) && !DECL_THREAD_LOCAL_P (decl) && !DECL_NOINIT_P (

[Bug middle-end/118889] attribute "common" ignored with -fdata-sections

2025-02-17 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118889 --- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3) > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118889 > > --- Comment #2 from G

[Bug middle-end/118889] attribute "common" ignored with -fdata-sections

2025-02-17 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118889 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > I think variables with 'static' linkage cannot be 'common'? Shouldn't they go into .lcomm, i.e. lcomm_section? What I am trying to achieve is to implement

[Bug target/115817] [AVR] Suboptimal code for zeroing SRAM byte from ISR

2025-02-16 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115817 --- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay --- What can be used as a kind of work-around (and may be even better than the code with improved Binutils as proposed above), is to hide the value of 0 from the compiler: volatile uint8_t var; __attribute(

[Bug target/115817] [AVR] Suboptimal code for zeroing SRAM byte from ISR

2025-02-16 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115817 --- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay --- See https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32704

[Bug target/115817] [AVR] Suboptimal code for zeroing SRAM byte from ISR

2025-02-16 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115817 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ul...@t-online.de --- Comment #7 fro

[Bug target/118880] bug 81268, which was supposedly fixed with gcc v8 is still present

2025-02-16 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118880 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|documentation, needs-source |missed-optimization Resoluti

[Bug target/118880] bug 81268, which was supposedly fixed with gcc v8 is still present

2025-02-15 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118880 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug middle-end/118889] New: attribute "common" ignored with -fdata-sections

2025-02-15 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
Component: middle-end Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- gcc from 2025-02-14 ignores attribute "common" with -fdata-sections: __attribute__((common)) static volatile int z; int main () { return z;

[Bug target/118880] bug 81268, which was supposedly fixed with gcc v8 is still present

2025-02-15 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118880 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-02-15 Status|UNCONF

[Bug other/118878] [ice][avr] internal compiler error: in avr_out_plus_1, at config/avr/avr.cc:8801

2025-02-14 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118878 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug other/118878] New: [ice][avr] internal compiler error: in avr_out_plus_1, at config/avr/avr.cc:8801

2025-02-14 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 60499 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60499&action=edit C test case The a

[Bug other/118878] [ice][avr] internal compiler error: in avr_out_plus_1, at config/avr/avr.cc:8801

2025-02-14 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118878 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/118591] [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra in pr43879-3.c

2025-02-13 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118591 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/118806] [avr] Optimize running main (-mo-call-main)

2025-02-12 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118806 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/118806] [avr] Optimize running main (-mo-call-main)

2025-02-10 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118806 --- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay --- ...or let me state is this way: This PR implements an optimization that is activated by some option (-mno-call-main). What's unusual is that it is activated by the no- version of the option, and -mcall-

[Bug target/118806] [avr] Optimize running main (-mo-call-main)

2025-02-09 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118806 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > Maybe it can also be done if main is [[noreturn]]? Not sure about that. The proposed patch /sets/ [[noreturn]] provided the conditions are right, i.e. -mno-call-

[Bug target/118806] [avr] Optimize running main (-mo-call-main)

2025-02-09 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118806 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Targ

[Bug target/118806] New: [avr] Optimize running main (-mo-call-main)

2025-02-09 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Add a new command line option -mno-call-main that uses a more efficient way of running main as provided by the startup code from libmcu.a XCALL main XJMP exit

[Bug target/118764] [avr] Add support for Compact Vector Table

2025-02-06 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118764 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/118768] [avr] Make genmultilib.awk more robust against white spaces

2025-02-06 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118768 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/118764] [avr] Add support for Compact Vector Table

2025-02-06 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118764 Bug 118764 depends on bug 118768, which changed state. Bug 118768 Summary: [avr] Make genmultilib.awk more robust against white spaces https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118768 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug libgdiagnostics/118769] New: Provide better location information for diagnostics with -Wattributes

2025-02-06 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
Priority: P3 Component: libgdiagnostics Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Compiling the following code with v15 __attribute__((xxx)) void my4 () {} I am getting the following diagnostic: file.c:2

[Bug target/118768] [avr] Make genmultilib.awk more robust against white spaces

2025-02-06 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118768 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||118764 Target|

[Bug target/118768] New: [avr] Make genmultilib.awk more robust against white spaces

2025-02-06 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The current genmultilib.awk is prone to errors when avr-mmcu.def adds or removed white spaces. For example, AVR_ATTR1|AVR_ATTR2 will be

[Bug target/118764] [avr] Add support for Compact Vector Table

2025-02-05 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118764 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Target||avr Severity|normal

[Bug target/118764] New: [avr] Add support for Compact Vector Table

2025-02-05 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Some devices support a Compact Vector Table (CVT) which will be supported in AVR-LibC v2.3 by means of startup code in crt-cvt.o. https://github.com/avrdudes/avr-libc/issues/1010

[Bug debug/100530] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE with -g: in add_dwarf_attr with __seg_gs (Alternative address-space) global variable since r8-4385-ga297ccb52e0c894e

2025-01-31 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100530 --- Comment #20 from Georg-Johann Lay --- So can this be closed as fixed (in v15+) ?

[Bug middle-end/118360] [avr] Expensive shift instead of bit test

2025-01-23 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118360 --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to GCC Commits from comment #4) > AVR: PR118012 - Try to work around sick code from match.pd. The patch above just tries to work around PR118012 / PR118360. It is by no means a proper fix,

[Bug middle-end/118012] [avr][13/14/15 Regression] Expensive code (bit extract + extend + neg + and) instead of bit test

2025-01-23 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118012 --- Comment #17 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to GCC Commits from comment #16) > AVR: PR118012 - Try to work around sick code from match.pd. The patch above just tries to work around PR118012 / PR118360. It is by no means a proper fix

[Bug rtl-optimization/118591] [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra in pr43879-3.c

2025-01-22 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118591 --- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Created attachment 60238 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60238&action=edit C99 test case that fails on ordinary AVRs (not avrtiny) This test case fails on ordinary AVRs like -mmcu=at

[Bug rtl-optimization/118591] [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra in pr43879-3.c

2025-01-21 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118591 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #1) > Created attachment 60230 [details] > reduced C99 test case In that test case: __attribute__((noipa)) void func2 (long a, long b) { static unsigned char

[Bug rtl-optimization/118591] [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra in pr43879-3.c

2025-01-21 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118591 --- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Created attachment 60230 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60230&action=edit reduced C99 test case Here is a reduced test case that fails with -mlra -mmcu=attiny40 for any optimization

[Bug rtl-optimization/118591] New: [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra in pr43879-3.c

2025-01-21 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
: rtl-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 60227 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60227&action=edit pr43879-3.c: C test case from test suite gcc.dg/torture/pr43

[Bug ipa/117546] [14 regression] Different (and incorrect) behavior when compiling C code with -O2

2025-01-21 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546 --- Comment #16 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Ok. Thanks for the pointer (though int32plus should be enough).

[Bug ipa/117546] [14 regression] Different (and incorrect) behavior when compiling C code with -O2

2025-01-21 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117546 --- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to GCC Commits from comment #12) > * gcc.dg/torture/pr117546.c: New test. That test fails on AVR. Does it assume that int is a 32-bit type or what? Unfortunately the test is just

[Bug rtl-optimization/56479] [lra][avr] Register allocator can't allocate two 4-byte variables into 8 registers for inline asm

2025-01-19 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56479 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Register allocator can't|[lra][avr] Register

[Bug middle-end/118556] size of asm not outputed with -dP

2025-01-19 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118556 --- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay --- For ordinary insns, it's enough to -dp to see code length (at least on a target that implements insn attribute "length"). So -dp should suffice.

[Bug middle-end/118554] Allow to specify the size of an inline asm

2025-01-19 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118554 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > That already is handled by the inline keyword. > so `__asm inline("" : "+r" (var));` But that's /only/ for inlining, where a "minimal" size is assumed -- what

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >