On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:06 PM, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
--- Comment #17 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-03-17 01:06
---
PPC does not trap on unaligned integer load and store.
That is not true, it traps on some. It all depends on the hardware.
Please don't say it does not trap on n
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-17 01:12
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression]: Gcc generates unaligned access
On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:06 PM, schwab at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Comment #17 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-03-17 01:06
> ---
> PPC does no
--- Comment #17 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-17 06:25 ---
I failed to note this PR when I checked in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01039.html as revision 112170,
sorry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23602
--- Comment #15 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-17 06:27 ---
I failed to note this PR when I checked in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01039.html as revision 112170,
sorry.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8047
We noticed that __builtin_constant_p() sometimes fails to recognise a function
that always returns 0 as being constant.
The code snippet below shows that gcc can work it out if we force the
evaluation into an inline function. It looks like this postpones the evaluation
of __builtin_constant_p to a
101 - 105 of 105 matches
Mail list logo