[Bug target/113947] Switch pdp11 to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113947 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug target/96050] PDP-11: 32-bit MOV from offset(Rn) overrides Rn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96050 --- Comment #1 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- There certainly are some missing earlyclobbers in the MD file. Someone else reported bad code from this and a patch to add the missing "&" fixed those. Curious that it doesn&#

[Bug c++/103806] internal compiler error: in vague_linkage_p, at cp/decl2.c:2192 for pdp11-aout target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103806 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3

[Bug libstdc++/103801] Link tests are not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES. for pdp11-aout target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103801 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/103801] Link tests are not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES. for pdp11-aout target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103801 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/107841] Incorrect generation of the function's epilogue code when there is a _builtin_alloca call.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107841 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug target/93719] Unable to find a register to spill

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93719 --- Comment #1 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- This works with -mlra, so given the deprecation of old reload the right answer seems to be to close this as fixed.

[Bug target/59172] pdp11-aout makes a wrong code at the epilogue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59172 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug target/59178] Stack corruption on register save/restore when using frame pointer on pdp-11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59178 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug target/107841] Incorrect generation of the function's epilogue code when there is a _builtin_alloca call.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107841 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-07-13

[Bug rtl-optimization/108388] LRA generates RTL that violates constraints

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108388 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug rtl-optimization/108388] New: LRA generates RTL that violates constraints

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 54259 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54259&action=edit Reproducer for this issue In gcc for pdp11-aout, compiling w

[Bug c/107476] Spurious stringop-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107476 --- Comment #1 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- I should mention that I reproduced this (a) on an M1 Mac running gcc (GCC) 13.0.0 20220827 (experimental), and also on an x86 Linux running gcc (GCC) 12.2.0.

[Bug c/107476] New: Spurious stringop-overflow warning

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 53803 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53803&action=edit Reproducer. Compile with -O3 The attached code produces a stringop-overflow

[Bug target/99645] pdp-11 target produces inefficient code for sign extend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99645 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status

[Bug target/96050] PDP-11: 32-bit MOV from offset(Rn) overrides Rn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96050 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-03-19

[Bug target/93719] Unable to find a register to spill

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93719 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status

[Bug target/84438] Another code pattern that breaks PDP11 with -m10: including reproducer code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84438 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-03-19 Ever

[Bug target/87821] pdp11 ICE on overaligned local variable: REG_POINTER used with unexpected rtx code 'const_int' in mark_reg_pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87821 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed

[Bug target/59847] cast to long makes compiler crash if using option pdp-11/10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59847 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed

[Bug target/59172] pdp11-aout makes a wrong code at the epilogue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59172 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status

[Bug target/99645] New: pdp-11 target produces inefficient code for sign extend

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- This issue was revealed by bug 84437. The reproducer given there now produces "correct" code but it's quite inefficient because

[Bug target/84437] long long casting breaks PDP-11 with -m10 model option (includes trivial reproducer)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84437 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug rtl-optimization/59942] pdp11-aout-gcc: PDP-11/10 code generation crashes when trying to do multiple shifts.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59942 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status

[Bug target/94134] pdp11-aout puts initial variable into .text section rather than .data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94134 --- Comment #11 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Stephen Casner from comment #9) A lot of these questions should have answers in the GCC Internals manual, which is quite good. And also quite dense. I know it a little, enough

[Bug target/94134] pdp11-aout puts initial variable into .text section rather than .data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94134 --- Comment #7 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- Thanks Jakub. Inspecting the generated assembly language is a sufficient check of the fix in my view. It's interesting that the test case shows the problem only with -O0. When optim

[Bug target/88435] Compiling with optimizations causes the compiler to fail.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88435 --- Comment #2 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- I don't see it in the current V9, rev 266823. ./xgcc -B. -O2 -S ~/Documents/pr88435.c -m10 cat pr88435.s .text .even .globl _pollConsole _pollConsole:

[Bug testsuite/88332] [9 regression] gcc.dg/Wattributes-10.c fails starting with r265728

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332 --- Comment #11 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- Thanks, I had forgotten. Seurer, could you update to r265741 or later and check if that cures the issue?

[Bug testsuite/88332] [9 regression] gcc.dg/Wattributes-10.c fails starting with r265728

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332 --- Comment #9 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment? I thought the comment is the null string after the regexp to match. Should it read { target { pdp11-*-* } } with the extra braces? Other examples show up both with the braces and

[Bug testsuite/88332] [9 regression] gcc.dg/Wattributes-10.c fails starting with r265728

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332 --- Comment #5 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- Could you post the full config specification and what the build system is? It seems hard to reproduce, and it is rather puzzling for a powerpc build to trigger a check that is explicitly there

[Bug testsuite/88332] [9 regression] gcc.dg/Wattributes-10.c fails starting with r265728

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pkoning at gcc dot

[Bug testsuite/88332] [9 regression] gcc.dg/Wattributes-10.c fails starting with r265728

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332 --- Comment #1 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- What is your target? I checked this on linux-x86_64 (native build). I don't see the complaint about line 15 in that run.

[Bug c/87944] Wrong code with LRA pushing stack local variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87944 --- Comment #2 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 44979 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44979&action=edit Test program source

[Bug c/87944] Wrong code with LRA pushing stack local variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87944 --- Comment #1 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 44978 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44978&action=edit Reload dump

[Bug c/87944] New: Wrong code with LRA pushing stack local variable

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 44977 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44977&action=edit Dump file before reload I see this on pdp11, I haven't found a mai

[Bug c/87795] Excessive alignment permitted for functions and labels

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87795 --- Comment #6 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #4) > I added myself as a CC because I want to see if these become errors or > warnings. For core parts of RTEMS, I can see wanting these to be

[Bug c/87795] Excessive alignment permitted for functions and labels

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87795 --- Comment #2 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 44924 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44924&action=edit label alignment test case

[Bug c/87795] Excessive alignment permitted for functions and labels

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87795 --- Comment #1 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 44923 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44923&action=edit variable and function alignment test case

[Bug c/87795] New: Excessive alignment permitted for functions and labels

Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Variable alignment is checked against MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT but function and label (-falign-label=n) alignment is not. This causes requests to the target code to generate

[Bug c/87794] New: Excessive alignment permitted for functions and labels

Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 44922 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44922&action=edit variable and function alignment test case Variable alignment is

[Bug c/86271] ICE due to size mismatch when inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86271 --- Comment #1 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-06/msg00228.html is the discussion and mentions a possible fix.

[Bug c/86271] New: ICE due to size mismatch when inlining

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 44308 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44308&action=edit Test case for the issue The attached test program causes an ICE when compiled fo

[Bug c/85974] New: Failure to optimize difference of two pointers into a compile time constant

: minor Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- This issue is exposed by test case testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/930326-1.c, on platforms where ptrdiff_t is not "long"

[Bug target/69639] [6/7/8/9 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69639 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/30974] pdp11-dec-bsd will not successfully build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30974 pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC

[Bug debug/54508] Wrong debug information emitted if data members not referenced

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54508 --- Comment #4 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-23 18:44:33 UTC --- Author: pkoning Date: Tue Oct 23 18:44:27 2012 New Revision: 192739 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192739 Log: PR deb

[Bug c/51147] attribute((mode(byte))) on an enum generates wrong code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51147 --- Comment #3 from Paul Koning 2011-11-18 11:49:56 UTC --- That workaround seems to do the right thing for what I need, so I'm no longer stuck. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Bug c/51147] attribute((mode(byte))) on an enum generates wrong code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51147 --- Comment #2 from Paul Koning 2011-11-16 01:47:27 UTC --- Thanks, I'll give that a try for another workaround.

[Bug c/51147] attribute((mode(byte))) on an enum generates wrong code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51147 Paul Koning changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Known to fail|

[Bug c/51147] New: attribute((mode(byte))) on an enum generates wrong code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51147 Bug #: 51147 Summary: attribute((mode(byte))) on an enum generates wrong code Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.5.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug debug/49459] attribute((mode(byte))) in a typedef produces wrong debug information

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49459 Paul Koning changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||4.1.2 --- Comment #2 from Paul Koning 2011

[Bug middle-end/50189] [4.5/4.6 Regression] Wrong code error in -O2 [-fstrict-enums] compile, target independent

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189 --- Comment #12 from Paul Koning 2011-10-12 14:04:30 UTC --- You said "GCC treats types compatible when they have the same precision". That's where the problem lies, because enums with -fstrict-enums have their precision set to just enough bits

[Bug middle-end/50189] [4.5/4.6 Regression] Wrong code error in -O2 [-fstrict-enums] compile, target independent

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189 --- Comment #10 from Paul Koning 2011-10-11 19:03:24 UTC --- Created attachment 25467 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25467 Tentative patch against 4.6.1 I chased the issue for a while, using 4.6.1 as the test version. The p

[Bug middle-end/50189] [4.5/4.6 Regression] Wrong code error in -O2 [-fstrict-enums] compile, target independent

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189 --- Comment #7 from Paul Koning 2011-10-10 20:41:35 UTC --- Re comment 5, does "works by luck" mean that I should not look in trunk for a fix to backport because nothing was actually fixed? Should I just avoid all versions of GCC newer than 4.4?

[Bug middle-end/50569] Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569 --- Comment #5 from Paul Koning 2011-09-29 20:55:15 UTC --- If the memcpy actually happens, that is the expected result. The issue in the MIPS case is that the memcpy is optimized away, and the source data accessed instead, which would be ok if

[Bug middle-end/50569] Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569 --- Comment #3 from Paul Koning 2011-09-29 19:52:47 UTC --- Created attachment 25383 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25383 Test case with main() Here is an updated testcase. This one runs to completion with 4.5.1, aborts wit

[Bug c/50569] Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569 Paul Koning changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug c/50569] New: Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569 Bug #: 50569 Summary: Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major

[Bug middle-end/50189] [4.5/4.6 Regression] Wrong code error in -O2 [-fstrict-enums] compile, target independent

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189 --- Comment #6 from Paul Koning 2011-09-09 19:11:01 UTC --- I saw the note that PR/49911 is fixed and thought that might mean this one is fixed also. Unfortunately testing shows that is not the case, at least not in 4_5_branch.

[Bug c++/50189] Wrong code error in -O2 compile, target independent

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189 Paul Koning changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 --- Comment #2 from Paul Koning 2011-08

[Bug c++/50189] Wrong code error in -O2 compile, target independent

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189 --- Comment #1 from Paul Koning 2011-08-25 17:19:23 UTC --- Created attachment 25106 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25106 gcc -v output (configure options etc.

[Bug c++/50189] New: Wrong code error in -O2 compile, target independent

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189 Bug #: 50189 Summary: Wrong code error in -O2 compile, target independent Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major

[Bug c/49459] New: attribute((mode(byte))) in a typedef produces wrong debug information

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49459 Summary: attribute((mode(byte))) in a typedef produces wrong debug information Product: gcc Version: 4.5.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/42775] [4.4 regression] GCC fails to rebuild itself with STAGE1_CFLAGS=-O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42775 Paul Koning changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #12

[Bug target/48990] MIPS wrong code error with -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990 Paul Koning changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/48990] MIPS wrong code error with -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990 --- Comment #6 from Paul Koning 2011-05-13 20:29:50 UTC --- Created attachment 24243 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24243 debug dump from the pass before machdep After some debugging, I see that the problem is that register

[Bug target/48990] MIPS wrong code error with -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990 --- Comment #5 from Paul Koning 2011-05-13 18:20:42 UTC --- Created attachment 24242 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24242 Assembly output from -mabi=n32 case, GCC 4.5.1 Here is the assembly file (with -dA so basic block boun

[Bug target/48990] MIPS wrong code error with -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990 --- Comment #3 from Paul Koning 2011-05-13 18:14:00 UTC --- The problem also shows up with -mabi=64, but it works correctly for -mabi=32 and -mabi=o64.

[Bug target/48990] MIPS wrong code error with -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990 --- Comment #4 from Paul Koning 2011-05-13 18:16:11 UTC --- Re comment 2: Sorry, my typo, I incorrectly transcribed the .s file. It's a beq, not a beql.

[Bug target/48990] MIPS wrong code error with -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990 --- Comment #1 from Paul Koning 2011-05-13 16:40:55 UTC --- GCC 4.6.0 gets it wrong also, in exactly the same way.

[Bug target/48990] New: MIPS wrong code error with -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48990 Summary: MIPS wrong code error with -O1 Product: gcc Version: 4.5.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: target AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.

[Bug c/47214] False warning "null argument where non-null required"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47214 --- Comment #2 from Paul Koning 2011-01-11 12:00:56 UTC --- Not if you look at that call in isolation, true. But right before it in the test program is a check that does exactly this.

[Bug c/47214] New: False warning "null argument where non-null required"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47214 Summary: False warning "null argument where non-null required" Product: gcc Version: 4.5.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo:

[Bug target/41822] pdp11 code generation bug & temporary fix

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41822 Paul Koning changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/41822] pdp11 code generation bug & temporary fix

||2010.10.29 00:28:57 CC||pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org |gnu.org | Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment