[Bug c/92164] Wrong result using builtin rint/rintf optimization in x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92164 --- Comment #3 from Steffen Schmidt --- Thanks for the quick reply. Just tested using -frounding-math and it seems to fix the issue. Sorry, I was not aware of this option, according to GCCs manual it is experimental. Please correct me if I'm w

[Bug c/92164] Wrong result using builtin rint/rintf optimization in x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92164 --- Comment #1 from Steffen Schmidt --- Created attachment 47072 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47072&action=edit Test result output text.

[Bug c/92164] New: Wrong result using builtin rint/rintf optimization in x86_64

Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: steffen-schmidt at siemens dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 47071 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47071&action=edit Test source and build script D

[Bug rtl-optimization/78038] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in get_sub_rtx, at ree.c:655

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78038 --- Comment #8 from Steffen Schmidt --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7) > I am a bit shocked you are using ILP32 for aarch64 bare metal. This is the > first time I have seen that. Hi, it was not my intension to shock you :) Actually

[Bug rtl-optimization/78038] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in get_sub_rtx, at ree.c:655

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78038 --- Comment #6 from Steffen Schmidt --- (In reply to ktkachov) > > By the way, the optimisation in which the ICE occurs is ree (redundant > extension elimination). You can turn it off by adding -fno-ree to the flags. Thanks a lot for the quick

[Bug target/78038] New: internal compiler error: in get_sub_rtx, at ree.c:655

Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: steffen-schmidt at siemens dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 39840 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39840&action=edit Test source file Dear GCC maintainers, we found t

[Bug c/71727] New: O3 optimization assumes 16byte alignment

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: steffen-schmidt at siemens dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 38810 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38810&action=edit ZIP contains source and results Hello all, When using aarch64 gcc w

[Bug rtl-optimization/52876] [x32] - Sign extend 32 to 64bit then clear upper 32bits fails O1 or higher

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876 --- Comment #16 from Steffen Schmidt 2013-02-07 11:49:38 UTC --- The proposed patch works on GCC 4.7.0. Has this patch already found its way into a GCC release. I was not able to find it applied in GCC 4.7.1/4.7.2? Would it be possibl

[Bug target/52876] [x32] - Sign extend 32 to 64bit then clear upper 32bits fails O1 or higher

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876 --- Comment #5 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-04-05 08:21:38 UTC --- Created attachment 27101 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27101 Assembly -O1 -mx32 gcc 4.6.3 x32 branch

[Bug target/52876] [x32] - Sign extend 32 to 64bit then clear upper 32bits fails O1 or higher

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876 --- Comment #4 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-04-05 08:21:03 UTC --- Created attachment 27100 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27100 Assembly -O1 -mx32 gcc 4.7.0

[Bug target/52876] [x32] - Sign extend 32 to 64bit then clear upper 32bits fails O1 or higher

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876 --- Comment #3 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-04-05 08:20:23 UTC --- Created attachment 27099 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27099 Assembly -O0

[Bug target/52876] [x32] - Sign extend 32 to 64bit then clear upper 32bits fails O1 or higher

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876 --- Comment #2 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-04-05 08:19:49 UTC --- Created attachment 27098 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27098 Example code v3

[Bug target/52876] [x32] - Sign extend 32 to 64bit then clear upper 32bits fails O1 or higher

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876 --- Comment #1 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-04-05 08:19:24 UTC --- Created attachment 27097 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27097 Example code v2

[Bug target/52876] New: [x32] - Sign extend 32 to 64bit then clear upper 32bits fails O1 or higher

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876 Bug #: 52876 Summary: [x32] - Sign extend 32 to 64bit then clear upper 32bits fails O1 or higher Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCO

[Bug target/52352] [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x80000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF using registers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52352 --- Comment #4 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-02-23 11:40:41 UTC --- Created attachment 26731 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26731 Generated -m64 -O1 assembler

[Bug target/52352] [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x80000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF using registers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52352 --- Comment #3 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-02-23 11:40:01 UTC --- Created attachment 26730 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26730 Generated -m64 -O3 assembler

[Bug target/52352] [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x80000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF using registers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52352 --- Comment #2 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-02-23 11:39:26 UTC --- Created attachment 26729 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26729 Generated -mx32 -O1 assembler

[Bug target/52352] [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x80000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF using registers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52352 --- Comment #1 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-02-23 11:38:50 UTC --- Created attachment 26728 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26728 Generated -mx32 -O3 assembler

[Bug target/52352] New: [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x80000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF using registers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52352 Bug #: 52352 Summary: [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x8000 to 0x using registers Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status:

[Bug target/52146] [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x80000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52146 --- Comment #17 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-02-13 10:52:31 UTC --- Fixes work fine, thanks alot!

[Bug target/52146] [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x80000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52146 --- Comment #8 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-02-10 12:23:00 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > Created attachment 26636 [details] > A patch I've tried the patch, it applied cleanly, but unfortunately it had no effect on the generated code. The gcc b

[Bug c/52146] [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x80000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52146 --- Comment #2 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-02-07 08:58:30 UTC --- Created attachment 26598 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26598 Generate -m64 assembler

[Bug c/52146] [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x80000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52146 --- Comment #1 from Steffen Schmidt 2012-02-07 08:58:00 UTC --- Created attachment 26597 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26597 Generated -mx32 assembler

[Bug c/52146] New: [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x80000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52146 Bug #: 52146 Summary: [x32] - Wrong code to access addresses 0x8000 to 0x Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/50474] GCC (cc1plus) hangs forever compiling with -O2 (-fcse-follow-jumps)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50474 --- Comment #2 from Steffen Schmidt 2011-09-26 09:04:33 UTC --- I'm very sorry for the inconvenience, but this bug is not directly related to any CodeSourcery built GCC toolchain. It was a pure coincedence using such a toolchain. I am able to re

[Bug c++/50474] New: GCC (cc1plus) hangs forever compiling with -O2 (-fcse-follow-jumps)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50474 Bug #: 50474 Summary: GCC (cc1plus) hangs forever compiling with -O2 (-fcse-follow-jumps) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/43700] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] global register variables defect

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43700 Steffen Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|| Known to fail|

[Bug target/45074] GCC Segmentation fault - negating global register variables

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45074 Steffen Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||4.5.0 --- Comment #3 from Steffen Schmi

[Bug target/45074] GCC Segmentation fault - negating global register variables

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45074 Steffen Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|| Severity|major