On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:02 AM Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 05:28:48PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 09:19:02AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > The inlining was just one of the issue, there are some related to
> > > different semantics of escaped locals.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 09:19:02AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> The inlining was just one of the issue, there are some related to
> different semantics of escaped locals. gcc always errors out while
> LLVM declares it undefined.
>
> But maybe we can fix that one too.
I have 3 patches to be tested,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 08:31:35AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Not sure I like this, but if others (e.g. Richi, Joseph, Jason) are ok with
> > it I can live with it. But we'd need a good documentation, ideally some
> > some new warning about it (perhaps enabled in -Wextra) and testcase
> > cov
On 3/20/25 12:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 09:19:02AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
The inlining was just one of the issue, there are some related to
different semantics of escaped locals. gcc always errors out while
LLVM declares it undefined.
But maybe we can fix that one to
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 06:25:26PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:01:02AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > So it could be as simple as that patch? It solves your test case at least
> > for x86.
>
> Not sure I like this, but if others (e.g. Richi, Joseph, Jason) are ok with
>
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:01:02AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> So it could be as simple as that patch? It solves your test case at least
> for x86.
Not sure I like this, but if others (e.g. Richi, Joseph, Jason) are ok with
it I can live with it. But we'd need a good documentation, ideally some
s
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 05:28:48PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 09:19:02AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The inlining was just one of the issue, there are some related to
> > different semantics of escaped locals. gcc always errors out while
> > LLVM declares it undefined.
>
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:45:33AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/19/25 9:31 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > From: Andi Kleen
> >
> > There are multiple reports (see PR 119376) now where semantic differences
> > in the gcc musttail implementation break existing programs written for the
> > clang
>
On 3/19/25 9:31 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
From: Andi Kleen
There are multiple reports (see PR 119376) now where semantic differences
in the gcc musttail implementation break existing programs written for the clang
variant.
Even though that can be all hopefully fixed eventually,
for the gcc 15 rele
From: Andi Kleen
There are multiple reports (see PR 119376) now where semantic differences
in the gcc musttail implementation break existing programs written for the clang
variant.
Even though that can be all hopefully fixed eventually,
for the gcc 15 release it seems safer to disable clang::mus
10 matches
Mail list logo
