http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52854
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52857
Bug #: 52857
Summary: [x32] DW_OP_GNU_regval_type doesn't handle
ARG_POINTER_REGNUM properly with -maddress-mode=long
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52857
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-03 23:28:42
UTC ---
Does this patch
diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.c b/gcc/dwarf2out.c
index ca88fc5..935c86f 100644
--- a/gcc/dwarf2out.c
+++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.c
@@ -11664,7 +11664,8 @@ mem_loc_descriptor (rtx rtl,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52793
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52838
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-05 13:42:30
UTC ---
The reason why GCC 4.6 works is it uses SImode for Pmode.
On trunk, I got
[hjl@gnu-6 pr52876]$ cat x.i
long long li;
long long testfunc(void* addr) __attribute__ ((noinline));
long long te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from H.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-05 14:30:40
UTC ---
simplify_binary_operation (code=AND, mode=DImode, op0=0x71ac0900,
op1=0x71a8ffb0) at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/simplify-rtx.c:1893
1893 gcc_assert (GET_RTX_CLASS (cod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Component|rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-05 15:46:02
UTC ---
We shouldn't copy REG_POINTER from SIGN_EXTEND on target with
POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED > 0. This patch works for me:
diff --git a/gcc/reginfo.c b/gcc/reginfo.c
index 6353126..77a7e66 1006
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-05 16:10:41
UTC ---
Created attachment 27102
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27102
A patch
This patch works for Linux/sparc. But it may not work
for all sparc targets which don't include lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52857
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-06 00:50:50
UTC ---
A small testcase:
[hjl@gnu-6 delta]$ cat testcase.c
extern void get_BID128 (int *);
void
__bid128_div (long long bid_y)
{
int res;
get_BID128 (&res);
}
[hjl@gnu-6 delta]$ gcc -mx32 -ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-06 12:23:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created attachment 27102 [details]
> A patch
>
> This patch works for Linux/sparc. But it may not work
> for all sparc targets which don't include long-double-swi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52857
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-06 13:05:49
UTC ---
For
(note 21 8 17 2 (expr_list:REG_DEP_TRUE (concat:SI (reg:SI 5 di)
(subreg:SI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 16 argp)
(const_int -20 [0xffec])) 0))
(nil)) NO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52857
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-06 14:51:55
UTC ---
Another testcase:
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 delta]$ cat testcase.c
void uw_init_context_1 (void *);
void _Unwind_ForcedUnwind (void)
{
uw_init_context_1 (__builtin_dwarf_cfa ());
}
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52857
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52916
Bug #: 52916
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52876
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-10 14:49:37
UTC ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00320.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52980
Bug #: 52980
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Many benchmarks in SPEC CPU 2000
failed to build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52980
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression] Many |[4.8 Regression] Many
|benchm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #75 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-17 14:47:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #74)
> We still have an unresolved issue here: we're effectively reversing the order
> in which the ctors are run across translation units. While explicitly
> undefine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #77 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-17 15:41:04
UTC ---
I believe .init_array keeps the same order of .ctors within
the same translation unit. The proposed --reverse-init-array
switch will only reverse the order across translation units,
while
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #80 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-17 18:12:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #79)
>
> As Paul noted, this is a moot point in practice for .ctors, since GCC emits
> only a single .ctors entry per TU, but it could be significant for assembly
> co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #82 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-17 19:02:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #81)
> Didn't I just do that?
>
Let me ask it again:
The proposed --reverse-init-array switch will only reverse the order across
translation units, while keeping the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53021
Bug #: 53021
Summary: [4.8 Regression] bootstrap failure on Linux/ia32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53021
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-17 19:57:44
UTC ---
unique_base_value calls gen_rtx_ADDRESS which overrides
dwarf_file_data created by lookup_filename in dwarf2out.c:
/* Check to see if the file name that was searched on the previous
c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53023
Bug #: 53023
Summary: file_table_last_lookup is used, but never set
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53023
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-17 20:19:34
UTC ---
This patch sets file_table_last_lookup:
diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.c b/gcc/dwarf2out.c
index 7e2ce58..d5783c2 100644
--- a/gcc/dwarf2out.c
+++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.c
@@ -20043,13 +20043,15 @@ lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #84 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-17 20:28:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #83)
>
> Paul suggested to me offline that maybe you're asking about
> translation units with several .ctors or .init_array sections. Since
> that doesn't happen in pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #88 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-17 22:15:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #86)
> > I have seen codes like:
> >
> > void (*const init_array []) (void)
> > __attribute__ ((section (".init_array"), aligned (sizeof (void * =
> > {
> > &i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53030
Bug #: 53030
Summary: [4.8 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53031
Bug #: 53031
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp54.c
scan-tree-dump-not vrp1 "link_error"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53032
Bug #: 53032
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 447.dealII in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-18 17:32:38
UTC ---
If someone can provide a description of what TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128
should be in all cases, I can try to come up with a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-18 21:04:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > If someone can provide a description of what TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128
> > should be in all cases, I can try to come up with a patch.
>
> It should be:
>
> option
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-18 21:42:39
UTC ---
One approach is to provide masks.opt to provide those masks without
switch. masks.opt should be used when long-double-switch.opt isn't
used.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
Bug #: 53037
Summary: warn_if_not_aligned(X)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27102|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 00:33:55
UTC ---
We need to add another field to tree_type_common and tree_decl_common to
store the warn_if_not_aligned value.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53043
Bug #: 53043
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr45830.c
scan-tree-dump switchconv "Expanding as bit test is
preferable"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53039
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 14:49:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> HJ, can you help with the search? (mind the -std=c++11)
My regression hunt machine is down. It will take a while to
get it back.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53043
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 14:55:54
UTC ---
It may be caused by revision 186576:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-04/msg00527.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 15:47:14
UTC ---
Given
typedef unsigned long long __u64 __attribute__((aligned(4)));
all most all __u64 will be aligned at 4. The only case we may
do something about is
typedef unsigned long long __u64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 16:00:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Logically, about half of u64's will be properly aligned at the moment...
> Linus'
No necessarily. For
u64 x;
int y;
u64 z;
both x and z may be 4 byte aligned.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 16:53:18
UTC ---
For a global or local 64bit variable, x, inside kernel,
why should it be 4 byte aligned if it isn't part of system
call interface?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 17:07:20
UTC ---
Shouldn't
typedef unsigned long long __u64 __attribute__((aligned(4)));
only be used in system call interface?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27184|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 17:20:42
UTC ---
Isn't checking alignment of x in:
typedef unsigned long long __u64
__attribute__((aligned(4),warn_if_not_aligned(8)));
struct foo
{
int i1;
int i2;
int i3;
__u64 x;
};
sufficien
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
Bug #: 53046
Summary: [4.8 Regression] New libstdc++ test failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53047
Bug #: 53047
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 482.sphinx3 in SPEC CPU 2006
miscompiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53048
Bug #: 53048
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 256.bzip2 in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 20:15:55
UTC ---
Created attachment 27197
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27197
A patch
I got
[hjl@gnu-6 pr53037]$ cat x.i
typedef unsigned long long __u64
__attribute__((aligned(4),wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27197|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 20:41:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Are the last two warnings in bits (as opposed to bytes)? It looks a little
> confusing...
It is fixed by the updated patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-19 21:06:49
UTC ---
Created attachment 27199
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27199
A smaller patch
There is no point to support
struct foo
{
int i1;
long long i2 __attribute__((align
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52821
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53062
Bug #: 53062
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 445.gobmk in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53062
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53062
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53048
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53030
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53032
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53047
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53046
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53073
Bug #: 53073
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 464.h264ref in SPEC CPU 2006
miscompiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
Bug #: 53086
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006
miscompiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53047
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53088
Bug #: 53088
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr39082-1.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53089
Bug #: 53089
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr39082-1.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
Bug #: 53106
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Benchmarks in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-24 21:50:20
UTC ---
On Linux/ia32, 447.dealII failed to build:
g++ -m32 -c -o fe_raviart_thomas.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -Iinclude
-DBOOST_DISABLE_THREADS -Ddeal_II_dimension=3 -O3 -funroll-loops -msse2
-mfpmath
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-24 23:12:19
UTC ---
[hjl@gnu-35 delta]$ /export/gnu/import/git/gcc-test-spec/usr/bin/gcc -mx32 -O3
-S testcase.cc
testcase.cc:31:35: error: caller edge frequency 3943 does not match BB
frequency 390
template c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-24 23:13:19
UTC ---
Testcase
[hjl@gnu-35 delta]$ cat testcase.cc
#include
template
class FiniteElement
{
public:
FiniteElement ( const std::vector > &nonzero_components);
};
template
class FE_RaviartT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53141
Bug #: 53141
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/bmi2-mulx32-[12]a.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53144
Bug #: 53144
Summary: [4.8 Regression]
gcc.c-torture/execute/vector-compare-1.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53145
Bug #: 53145
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pch/save-temps-1.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58529
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Can you add "-funroll-loops --param max-unroll-times=7"?
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: ubizjak at gmail dot com
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ cat /tmp/foo.c
struct gomp_team_state
{
void *team;
void *work_share;
void *last_work_share
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58690
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 30982
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30982&action=edit
A patch
In x32, when TLS address is in DImode and Pmode is SImode.
copy_addr_to_reg will fail. This patch adds ix86_cop
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
On x32, revision 203937 gave
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/memset-1.c execution test
Revision 203931 is OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58981
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58981
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
The bug is in
*count = expand_simple_binop (GET_MODE (*count), PLUS, *count,
saveddest, *count, 1, OPTAB_DIRECT);
(gdb) call debug_rtx (saveddest)
(reg:SI 101)
(gdb) call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58981
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
The real bug seems in set_storage_via_setmem in expr.c:
for (mode = GET_CLASS_NARROWEST_MODE (MODE_INT); mode != VOIDmode;
mode = GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (mode))
{
enum insn_code code = direct_optab_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58981
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58981
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
A testcase for memcpy:
[hjl@gnu-32 gcc]$ cat /tmp/memcpy-2.c
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -minline-all-stringops" } */
extern void abort (void);
extern void exit (int);
#define MAX_OFFSET (sizeof (lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58981
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg00179.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58990
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Works for me with gcc 4.8.2 from Fedora 19:
[hjl@gnu-29 tmp]$ cat x.cc
#include
#include
void *foo(bool var) {
if (var) return (void*)(intptr_t)&stat;
return (void*)(intptr_t)&stat64;
}
[hjl@gnu-29 tmp]$ g++
y: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
r204368 breaks x32. There are 4 problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59011
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.3.6 |4.4.0
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
It is ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #1)
> At least one of these patches does not build with clang:
>
> /home/kcc/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc:
> 807:21: error: ignored a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #4)
> the patches look good and pass our testing on x86_64 and i386.
> Thanks!
> committed as
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=194155
> (fixe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59018
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #5)
> > Can you try
> >
> > register void *r8 __asm__ ("r8") = newtls;
> > register int *r10 __asm__ ("r10") = child_tidptr;
> Yep, works!
>
> > But you need to ena
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: ubizjak at gmail dot com
On x86-64, r203247 gave
# ./xgcc -B./ -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -fdiagnostics-color=never -O1 -w -S
/export/gnu/import
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59034
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
split2 generates
(insn 26 25 8 2 (set (mem:SI (plus:DI (reg/f:SI 7 sp)
(const_int 4 [0x4])) [0 S4 A8])
(const_int -1766711296 [0x96b22000])) x.i:4 86
{*movsi_internal} (nil))
D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59034
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
The fix is obvious:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index c7ec0c1..a2c81e5 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -1669,7 +1669,7 @@
split_double_mod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59034
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1501 - 1600 of 7052 matches
Mail list logo
