https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kim at mail333 dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jun 10 18:40:37 2016
New Revision: 237315
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237315&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR inline-asm/68843
* gcc.target/i386/pr68843-2.c: Add dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Jun 10 12:22:21 2016
New Revision: 237303
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237303&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2016-06-10 Bernd Edlinger
PR inline-asm/68843
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to David from comment #7)
> Would a doc patch be appropriate too?
well, more difficult how to explain it right than to code it right,
meanwhile I added a sentence in english this to the patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
--- Comment #7 from David ---
Would a doc patch be appropriate too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
How about this?
I think tt should fix both issues.
Index: reg-stack.c
===
--- reg-stack.c (Revision 231598)
+++ reg-stack.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
and that's the next oddity:
cat t1.c
int test (double x, double y)
{
int r;
asm ("fist %0\t# %0 %1 %2" : "=r" (r) : "r" (x), "t" (y));
return r;
}
gcc -S t1.c -m32
t1.c: In function ‘test’:
t1.c:4:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
hmm, yes.
the registers are named "st" "st(1)" "st(2)" .. "st(7)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
David changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gccbugzilla@limegreensocks.
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> There are several non-intuitive rules that one has to follow to avoid ICEs
> with x87 asm operands. Just don't go down that path, there is only pain and
> suffer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68843
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
There are several non-intuitive rules that one has to follow to avoid ICEs with
x87 asm operands. Just don't go down that path, there is only pain and suffer.
12 matches
Mail list logo
