https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
andysem at mail dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andysem at mail dot ru
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #12 from Richard Earnshaw ---
We considered that, but it won't work. For example, in ILP32 address registers
need to use the X form, but are still 32-bits in size. There are other cases
as well where a W or X form is required but th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #11 from Jeremy ---
int32_t n;
asm( "str %1,[%0],#4" : "+r" (ptr) : "r" (n) : "memory" );
Caught me until I just happened to examine the assembler.
Of course %w1 works - but then I need SEPARATE code for 32-bit ARM and for
aarch64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #10 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #9 from James Molloy ---
OK, given your second example I agree that the usecase isn't quite as
pathological as I thought.
> I'm not saying I'll never accept a warning for this sort of code; but I'd need
convincing that it won't undul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to James Molloy from comment #6)
> Good example, although I might argue slightly pathological.
>
Agreed, this is somewhat pathological, but I only need to find one valid
counter-example :-)
Fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #3)
> I'm not so sure about a warning, however. I could envisage cases where the
> warning would be incorrect and avoiding it would lead to code pessimisation.
I don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #6 from James Molloy ---
Good example, although I might argue slightly pathological.
So in this case currently, GCC doesn't even implicitly promote the argument,
just uses it as-is. It seems a very dangerous behaviour to have as defa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
So consider:
int f(int i){
long x;
asm("lsl %0, %1, 33" : "=r"(x) : "r"(i)); // lshift by more than sizeof(int)
return x;
}
We really don't care about the top bits in i, so we don't want to extend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #4 from James Molloy ---
Hi Richard,
My two-pennyworth for what it's worth - we've had several people with broken
code tripped by this bug, and Apple have reported seeing the same thing with
their internal codebases. This one seems o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to James Molloy from comment #1)
> > Besides, clang rejects it, so please find a common syntax...
>
> It shouldn't. The "w" modifier should have been supported since clang 3.4,
> and is certainly sup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
James Molloy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||james.molloy at arm dot com
--- Comment #
14 matches
Mail list logo
