On 7/17/24 12:27 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
y.
May be that's already the case with -mlink-relax? IIRC that was
introduced to keep the assembler from resolving label differences
when the linker may relax and hence change label differences, because
it shredded debug info.
You never know if a
Am 17.07.24 um 19:51 schrieb Jeff Law:
On 7/17/24 11:13 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Am 17.07.24 um 17:55 schrieb Jeff Law:
On 7/17/24 9:26 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
It looks fine for the trunk. Out of curiosity, does the avr port
implement linker relaxing for this case? That would seem to
On 7/17/24 11:13 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Am 17.07.24 um 17:55 schrieb Jeff Law:
On 7/17/24 9:26 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
It looks fine for the trunk. Out of curiosity, does the avr port
implement linker relaxing for this case? That would seem to be
No. avr-ld performs relaxing, b
Am 17.07.24 um 17:55 schrieb Jeff Law:
On 7/17/24 9:26 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
It looks fine for the trunk. Out of curiosity, does the avr port
implement linker relaxing for this case? That would seem to be
No. avr-ld performs relaxing, but only the two cases of
- JMP/CALL to RJMP/RCAL
On 7/17/24 9:26 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
It looks fine for the trunk. Out of curiosity, does the avr port
implement linker relaxing for this case? That would seem to be
No. avr-ld performs relaxing, but only the two cases of
- JMP/CALL to RJMP/RCALL provided the offset fits.
- [R]C
Am 17.07.24 um 16:36 schrieb Jeff Law:
On 7/17/24 3:45 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Ping #1 for
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/656332.html
Address computation (usually add) with symbols that are aligned
to 256 bytes does not require to add the lo8() part as it is zero.
Th
On 7/17/24 3:45 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Ping #1 for
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/656332.html
Address computation (usually add) with symbols that are aligned
to 256 bytes does not require to add the lo8() part as it is zero.
This patch adds a new combine insn that
Ping #1 for
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/656332.html
Address computation (usually add) with symbols that are aligned
to 256 bytes does not require to add the lo8() part as it is zero.
This patch adds a new combine insn that performs a widening add
from QImode plus such a
Address computation (usually add) with symbols that are aligned
to 256 bytes does not require to add the lo8() part as it is zero.
This patch adds a new combine insn that performs a widening add
from QImode plus such a symbol. The case when such an aligned
symbol is added to a reg that's already
