On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:12:17PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:28:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> >> On 03/14/2015 07:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> >> > PR
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:12:17PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:28:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 03/14/2015 07:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> >> > PR target/65408
> >> > PR target/58744
> >> > PR midd
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:28:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 03/14/2015 07:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> > PR target/65408
>> > PR target/58744
>> > PR middle-end/36043
>> > * calls.c (load_register_parameters): Don't load past
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:28:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/14/2015 07:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > PR target/65408
> > PR target/58744
> > PR middle-end/36043
> > * calls.c (load_register_parameters): Don't load past end of
> > mem unless suitably aligned.
> I think this
On 03/14/2015 07:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
This is Richi's prototype patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043#c23 with fixes for
blocks larger than one reg, big-endian, and BLOCK_REG_PADDING.
I also removed the operand_subword_force since we may as well let
narrow_bit_field_mem
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:32:38PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> I'll also throw together a testcase or three.
* gcc.dg/pr65408.c: New.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr65408.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr65408.c (revision
On Mar 14, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> newlib doesn’t have mmap. Indeed, some machines will never have mmap.
>> newlib has sbrk.
>
> Still, I think it is preferrable to test with mmap…
I don’t see anything wrong with going the target mmap direction… my post was
just to provid
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:51:28AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> wrote:
> > On March 14, 2015 2:02:38 PM GMT+01:00, Alan Modra wrote:
> >
> >> I'll also throw together a testcase or three. For execute tests I'm
> >> thinking of using sbrk to
On Mar 14, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> On March 14, 2015 2:02:38 PM GMT+01:00, Alan Modra wrote:
>
>> I'll also throw together a testcase or three. For execute tests I'm
>> thinking of using sbrk to locate an odd sized struct such that access
>> past the end segfaults,
On March 14, 2015 2:02:38 PM GMT+01:00, Alan Modra wrote:
>I'll also throw together a testcase or three. For execute tests I'm
>thinking of using sbrk to locate an odd sized struct such that access
>past the end segfaults, rather than mmap/munmap as was done in the
>pr36043 testcase. Does that
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 06:14:40AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > I'll also throw together a testcase or three. For execute tests I'm
> > thinking of using sbrk to locate an odd sized struct such that access
> > past the end segfaults, rather than m
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> This is Richi's prototype patch in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043#c23 with fixes for
> blocks larger than one reg, big-endian, and BLOCK_REG_PADDING.
> I also removed the operand_subword_force since we may as well let
> nar
12 matches
Mail list logo
