https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Pedro Alves from comment #16)
> I ran into this, and thought that:
>
> typedef unsigned int __attribute__ ((__mode__(__byte__))) byte;
>
> or:
>
> typedef unsigned int __attribute__ ((__mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
Pedro Alves changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palves at redhat dot com
--- Comment #16 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 18 May 2015, kevin at koconnor dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
>
> --- Comment #12 from Kevin OConnor ---
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
--- Comment #14 from Kevin OConnor ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #13)
> I concur that it would be valid to define those typedefs to be extended
> integer types withing the special aliasing properties. The first
> sugges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I concur that it would be valid to define those typedefs to be extended
integer types withing the special aliasing properties. The first
suggestion of that on the GCC lists that I know of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
--- Comment #12 from Kevin OConnor ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #11)
> Since typedef does not create a new type the effect of uint8_t is exactly
> the same as the type it is defined from. Thus if uint8_t is defined from
> unsigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab ---
Since typedef does not create a new type the effect of uint8_t is exactly the
same as the type it is defined from. Thus if uint8_t is defined from unsigned
char then uint8_t is a character type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
--- Comment #10 from Kevin OConnor ---
I've looked through the C specs (both C99 and C11) and I don't see anything
that requires uint8_t (nor int8_t) to be considered "character types". I do
see three relevant sections in the spec which I'm incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
--- Comment #8 from Kevin OConnor ---
Thanks! I can confirm the latest trunk performs the desired optimization.
However, this test case still isn't fully optimized:
void f2(struct s1 *ps1, uint8_t *pi8)
{
ps1->f1 = 3;
*pi8 = 8;
ps1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 13 10:53:42 2015
New Revision: 223126
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223126&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-13 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/66110
* ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, it for example breaks bootstrap via (broken...) -Wstrict-aliasing:
In file included from
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/../libdecnumber/bid/decimal128Local.h:1:0,
from /space/rguent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, missed-optimization
15 matches
Mail list logo
