http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #7 from iant at google dot com 2012-07-19
20:52:27 UTC ---
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Rainer Emrich
wrote:
> ../../../src/gcc-4.8.0/gcc/pointer-set.c: In function 'size_t hash1(const
> void*,
> long unsi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #9 from iant at google dot com 2011-12-06
21:33:33 UTC ---
> As I understand it, -fno-strict-overflow also affects optimizations for
> pointer overflow in any of the three -fwrapv/-ftrapv/default modes (those
> modes only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #7 from iant at google dot com 2011-12-06
18:40:58 UTC ---
> I don't know about -fstrict-overflow, but maybe that should be separate
> (controlling whether, in cases where the default semantics are in effect,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50857
--- Comment #3 from iant at google dot com 2011-10-28
13:56:23 UTC ---
I suppose you could drop something into POSTSTAGE1_FLAGS_TO_PASS. But
it's not the right thing to do. We want to use -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti even when using --di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082
--- Comment #5 from iant at google dot com 2011-08-15
19:39:08 UTC ---
"rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> I suppose the forwprop code wants to force a warning at -Wstrict-overflow=1
> if the conditional becomes optimized
--- Comment #15 from iant at google dot com 2007-07-01 01:58 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] function with asm() does not setup stack frame
> Adding the stack pointer for asms is certainly the easiest thing to do.
I don't know if that is enough. Maybe it is, maybe it isn
