Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jon at beniston dot com
GCC target triplet: Targets with STRICT_ALIGNMENT defined
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38395
--- Comment #3 from jon at beniston dot com 2008-12-24 18:21 ---
This is a port to a new target I am working on, so thanks for investigating.
Are you saying that PARAM_BOUNDARY and STACK_BOUNDARY must be >=
BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT?
Looking through the other ports it appears this may not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52466
--- Comment #4 from Jon Beniston 2012-11-05 08:53:50
UTC ---
I always used to configure with --enable-sjlj-exceptions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47025
Summary: Dead stores in varadic functions not eliminated
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
Jon Beniston changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jon at beniston dot com
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
Jon Beniston changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #11 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #12 from Jon Beniston ---
This looks like it might be similar to bug 57636, which has the same ICE on the
cr16 port.
Suggestion there is that it was introduced in trunk@188870:
2012-06-21 Alexandre Oliva
PR debug/53671
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57636
Jon Beniston changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jon at beniston dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
Jon Beniston changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50293
Bug #: 50293
Summary: -flto fails if GCC is installed in directory with
space in path name
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52356
Bug #: 52356
Summary: expr.c:emit_move_multi_word() can overwrite address
register
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50927
--- Comment #2 from Jon Beniston 2012-11-27 21:55:18
UTC ---
Created attachment 28797
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28797
Patch to get the C compiler to build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50927
Jon Beniston changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jon at beniston dot com
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jon at beniston dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 41743
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41743&action=edit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81428
--- Comment #2 from Jon Beniston ---
Thanks Jakub, the patch works for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52466
--- Comment #12 from Jon Beniston ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #11)
> This patch appears not to have been posted on gcc-patches which is required
> for all checkins, and none of the bugzillas seem to say who approved it.
Strange.
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jon at beniston dot com
Target Milestone: ---
In the following code, where 'short' is 16-bits, on 32-bit processors
(ARM/MIPS/SPARC targets), the code that is generated to truncate the value of
the var
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #18 from Jon Beniston ---
Thanks, this seems to fix the LM32 port.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57636
--- Comment #5 from Jon Beniston ---
It's worth trying the fix posted for bug 57232.
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jon at beniston dot com
The m32c cond_to_int pattern uses (const_int -1) for both less than and greater
than:
(define_insn "cond_to_int"
[(set (match_operand:HI 0 "mra_qi_operand" "=Rqi&q
river
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jon at beniston dot com
Target Milestone: ---
It seems it isn't possible to use the -Wa option to pass options to the
assembler when -flto is used.
E.g.
gcc -Wa,--my-option
works OK, but when using:
gcc -flto -Wa,--my-option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248
--- Comment #2 from Jon Beniston ---
Hi Steve. I'm not sure I'm follow your explanation.
As I understand it, signed overflow is undefined behaviour
(http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/120), so I'm not sure why we need to worry
about changing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248
--- Comment #4 from Jon Beniston ---
Well if it is just truncating the higher bits, why can't it be done at the end
of the loop?
What do you think will be different if it is done at the end of the loop? Can
you think of an example where the valu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248
--- Comment #6 from Jon Beniston ---
-fstrict-overflow (which is the default at -O2) tells us that we can assume it
will not overflow.
Even if it did, on most targets it makes no difference to the result.
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jon at beniston dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Currently, the behaviour of smin and smax is unspecified when either operand is
a NaN.
This seems to mean that floating point min/max instructions are
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jon at beniston dot com
GCC target triplet: arm-elf and others
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42612
--- Comment #3 from jon at beniston dot com 2010-01-05 12:13 ---
GCC 4.1.2 seems to produce the same code.
mov r2, #0
mov r3, r0
strbr2, [r3], #1
strbr2, [r0, #1]
add r0, r3, #2
@ lr needed for prologue
strbr2
--- Comment #5 from jon at beniston dot com 2010-05-25 23:51 ---
This is the same as 43805. Looks like it can be fixed by removing
GO_IF_MODE_DEPENDENT_ADDRESS from lm32.h. I'll submit a patch shotly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43726
--- Comment #2 from jon at beniston dot com 2010-05-25 23:55 ---
Hi Joel, do you have a .i test case for this? Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43527
--- Comment #5 from jon at beniston dot com 2010-05-26 09:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=20746)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20746&action=view)
Possible fix for bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43805
--- Comment #6 from jon at beniston dot com 2010-05-26 09:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=20747)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20747&action=view)
Possible fix for bug
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43726
31 matches
Mail list logo
