http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33970
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
--- Comment #12 from abnikant dot singh at atmel dot com 2010-09-13 12:09
---
I have verified the attached test case and test case with other comments and
found the code generated is correct i.e. the variable is not promoted to
integer in gcc-4.3.3, gcc-4.4.3, gcc-4.5.0 and also the lat
--- Comment #11 from wvangulik at xs4all dot nl 2007-11-06 21:01 ---
I just realised I did not tried hard enough to find the smallest case:
===
volatile unsigned char bar;
void foo(void) {
unsigned char x;
for(x=0;x<128; x++) {
//bar = x+1
--- Comment #10 from wvangulik at xs4all dot nl 2007-11-06 19:34 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
>
> I think you will also find that if x is changed from ststic to auto the same
> problem appears.
>
Ok, I tried to find the minimum test case.
And it has nothing todo with static/volatile/i
--- Comment #9 from henning dot m at insightbb dot com 2007-11-06 12:37
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > With Mike's description in comment #6, confirmed on 4.1.2 and 4.2.2. AVR GCC
> > 4.2.2 is worse than 4.1.2, in that even if sub2 is called with (x+1), the
--- Comment #8 from wvangulik at xs4all dot nl 2007-11-05 22:48 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> With Mike's description in comment #6, confirmed on 4.1.2 and 4.2.2. AVR GCC
> 4.2.2 is worse than 4.1.2, in that even if sub2 is called with (x+1), the
> variable is still 16 bits.
>
There i
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last r
--- Comment #7 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-11-04 23:28
---
With Mike's description in comment #6, confirmed on 4.1.2 and 4.2.2. AVR GCC
4.2.2 is worse than 4.1.2, in that even if sub2 is called with (x+1), the
variable is still 16 bits.
--
eweddington at cso dot a
--- Comment #6 from henning dot m at insightbb dot com 2007-11-01 21:26
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Mike, can you provide additional information as to where the bug is?
>
This is the assembly output I get:
Note that r14,r15 is being reserved for variable x when only a single reg is
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-11-01 17:47
---
Mike, can you provide additional information as to where the bug is?
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-11-01 17:45
---
Created an attachment (id=14455)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14455&action=view)
Assembly output of test case using 4.1.2.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't even see it being promoted on th
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-11-01 17:28
---
Created an attachment (id=14454)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14454&action=view)
Preprocessed testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33970
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-01 17:09 ---
I don't see it being promoted on x86-linux-gnu at the tree level.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
13 matches
Mail list logo
