https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #22 from ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Agreed. It would be ideal not to have to deal with this in the store-forward
avoidance pass (i.e., catching it before or during lowering).
Given that the store-forward avoidance pass (mostly) c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024, ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
>
> ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Last recon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think some of this is due to SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS being set to 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||71509
--- Comment #16 from Richard Bien
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-04-21 15:48:10 UTC ---
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
>
> --- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-21 15:43:27 UTC ---
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > If gcc has forgotten the underlying type, and only looks at the bitfield
> > size
> > and offset, gcc will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-20
16:19:05 UTC ---
Well, there is also the expander that can and often does increase the size of
the accesses, see e.g. PR48124 for more details. And e.g. for C++0x memory
model as well as -fopenmp or,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #11 from Linus Torvalds 2011-04-20
16:16:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
>
> Unfortunately the underlying type isn't easily available (at least I didn't
> yet find it ...). But I suppose we have to guess anyway considering
> tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka 2011-04-20 15:54:17
UTC ---
> Actually the 4.0.4 compiler is x86_64, the code with -m32. The 4.0.3
> compiler is i586.
>
> /space/rguenther/install/gcc-4.0.3/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.0.3/cc1
> -quiet -v
> Actually the 4.0.4 compiler is x86_64, the code with -m32. The 4.0.3
> compiler is i586.
>
> /space/rguenther/install/gcc-4.0.3/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.0.3/cc1
> -quiet -v t.c -quiet -dumpbase t.c -m32 -mtune=pentiumpro -auxbase t -O2
> -version -o t.s
>
>
> /space/rguenther/install/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2011-04-20
15:41:09 UTC ---
Btw, the branch from the work "some time ago" created
show_bug:
.LFB2:
movl(%rdi), %eax
andl$-64, %eax
movl%eax, (%rdi)
shrl$6, %eax
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-04-20
15:39:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> >
> > I'm not sure where to best address this, rather than throwing in again
> > the idea of lowering bitfield accesses early
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #7 from Linus Torvalds 2011-04-20
15:30:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
>
> I'm not sure where to best address this, rather than throwing in again
> the idea of lowering bitfield accesses early on trees.
So my gut feel is that g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.1.0
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-04-20
12:15:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > So something changed between 4.0.3 and 4.0.4? Or maybe a typo?
>
> I only have 32bit compilers for both and see, for 4.0.3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-04-20
12:11:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> So something changed between 4.0.3 and 4.0.4? Or maybe a typo?
I only have 32bit compilers for both and see, for 4.0.3:
show_bug:
pushl %ebp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Statu
21 matches
Mail list logo
