https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103870
--- Comment #1 from Petro Karashchenko ---
I would expect "bgt" instruction instead of "bne" in such case.
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: petro.karashchenko at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Code test.c:
void f(void)
{
double a = 2.2204460492503131e-16;
int b = 1;
int c = 0;
while (a > 0)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88085
--- Comment #20 from Petro Karashchenko
---
I just checked next case
typedef int tolerant_int __attribute__((aligned(1)));
tolerant_int var;
int foo(void)
{
return var;
}
--
arm-none-eabi-gcc -save-temps -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88085
--- Comment #19 from Petro Karashchenko
---
Sorry my bad again. Just checked with GCC 11 man page
When used on a struct, or struct member, the aligned attribute can only
increase the alignment; in order to decrease it, the packed attribute must
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88085
--- Comment #18 from Petro Karashchenko
---
Yes. So I just checked GCC man and see that
The aligned attribute can only increase the alignment; but you can decrease it
by specifying packed as well. See below.
Note that the effectiveness of alig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88085
--- Comment #16 from Petro Karashchenko
---
Again based on your description even if we go with putting "tolerance" on the
type should not work because in "typedef int tolerant_int
__attribute__((aligned(1)));" the "int" default alignment is 4 an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88085
--- Comment #14 from Petro Karashchenko
---
Probably I need to fill a ticket to allow "packed" to be applied for variables
and not only to a types of structure fields.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88085
--- Comment #13 from Petro Karashchenko
---
Sorry that I brought some confusion. I was reading some latest comments and
didn't fully payed attention to a ticket description. The reason for my comment
is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88085
--- Comment #11 from Petro Karashchenko
---
Sorry but based on
@cindex @code{aligned} variable attribute
@item aligned
@itemx aligned (@var{alignment})
The @code{aligned} attribute specifies a MINIMUM alignment for the variable
or structure fie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94387
--- Comment #7 from Petro Karashchenko ---
Is it still 'UNCONFIRMED'? Or it can be moved to 'CONFIRMED' or 'ASSIGNED'
state?
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: petro.karashchenko at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
__attribute__ 'aligned' is ignored.
Test case 1:
--
int __attribute__((aligned(1))) var;
int foo(void)
{
return var;
}
--
arm-none-eabi-gcc -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94387
--- Comment #6 from Petro Karashchenko ---
Richard Biener thank you for suggestion, but __attribute__((aligned(..))) is
applied only to the base address of the struct, hence to the first field only,
so if I'm having other fields tightly packed an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94387
--- Comment #4 from Petro Karashchenko ---
Andrew Pinski could you please share with me requirements needed for strict
alignment?
Actually I do not understand why read-write cycle is needed if no "read" or
"modify" operation is requested (I mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94387
--- Comment #1 from Petro Karashchenko ---
Also the ambiguity of the issue is that excess read instructions generation
depends on type of the field. Excess reads are not generated when 8 bit types
are accessed and generated when data types greate
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: petro.karashchenko at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48140
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
15 matches
Mail list logo
