https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77261
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77438
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Gcc does avoid using the stack when it is more efficient to do so (depends on
the -march setting).
Yes, using SSE would be better.
The general advice is to stop using MMX.
Using gcc's vector extension generates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68873
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151
--- Comment #23 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Tracking binutils bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20545
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994
drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drepper.fsp+rhbz at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77438
Bug ID: 77438
Summary: MMX intrinsic on x86_64 generates bloated code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
--- Comment #5 from Manish ---
../configure --enable-multilib --with-gmp=../gmp --with-mpc=../mpc
--with-mpfr=../mpfr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
--- Comment #4 from Manish ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Couple of questions:
> 1) What version of gcc are you starting with?
> 2) the log file does not have all of error messages (there are some more I
> know of it).
Current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also how did you configure gcc?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77416
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
Here's a creduce'd minimal version of the test case that shows the addz after
the function call. Same compiler options as above.
extern int fn2 ();
extern void fn3 ();
extern void fn4 (int);
int a, c, d, f,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
Manish changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manishthatte at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437
Bug ID: 77437
Summary: recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Sep 1 01:55:47 2016
New Revision: 239913
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239913&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/57728 - adjust testcase
* g++.dg/cpp0x/explicit12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69823
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> Test-case minimized from PR68279:
That should have been: Test-case minimized from PR68279 comment 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69823
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436
--- Comment #3 from Lucas Werkmeister
---
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that wrapping is defined but overflow isn’t. The bug also
happens if the summand type is changed to long (or, precisely, int64_t), where
overflow shouldn’t happen (we’re adding at m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2)
> following is not suspicious and it would seem silly to warn for it:
>
> return (a > 0 && b <= 3 ? 1 : 2);
>
> (because the suggested alternative parse w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436
Bug ID: 77436
Summary: Incorrect constant result for summing loop inserted
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49232
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Straightforward patch:
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c (Revision 239218)
+++ expr.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -3764,6 +3764,45 @@
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77435
Bug ID: 77435
Summary: Dependent reference non-type template parameter not
matched for partial specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> > Code such as the following are suspicious:
> >
> > int foo(int a, int b)
> > {
> > return (a > 0 && a <= (b == 1) ? 1 : 2);
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Code such as the following are suspicious:
>
> int foo(int a, int b)
> {
> return (a > 0 && a <= (b == 1) ? 1 : 2);
Actually I don't t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This needs data flow as the front-end has no way to process *a and then a.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > This needs data flow to see if b usage cross over the clobber or not.
>
> I think the simpler case ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> This needs data flow to see if b usage cross over the clobber or not.
I think the simpler case can be warned in the FE. I cannot imagine a correct
use of a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
This also should be detected at runtime with either -fsantizer=undefined or
-fsantizer=address (if it is not, please file another bug for that).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2)
> I'd also encourage people to look at these issues for ideas for new
> warnings in GCC, if they can define a warning case that's plausible to
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Summary|warn about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434
Bug ID: 77434
Summary: warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator
(?:)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
Bug ID: 77433
Summary: warn about pointer that escapes its scope
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432
Bug ID: 77432
Summary: warn about null check after pointer dereference
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77425
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77431
Bug ID: 77431
Summary: warn for having the same code in if-else branches
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
|| xloc.file == '\0' || xloc.file[0] == '\xff'
|| xloc.file[1] == '\xff')
This missing warning is PR64767
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71077
--- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Wed Aug 31 19:06:22 2016
New Revision: 239907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix folding of VECTOR_CST comparisons
gcc/ChangeLog:
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68542
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Wed Aug 31 19:06:22 2016
New Revision: 239907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix folding of VECTOR_CST comparisons
gcc/ChangeLog:
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Remaining issues:
The missing warning is tracked in PR77430.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77430
Bug ID: 77430
Summary: warn about redundant assignments
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Whereas :
$ cat z3.f90
program p
shape(1,2,3) = 0
end
$ gfortran-7-20160828 z3.f90
z3.f90:2:3:
shape(1,2,3) = 0
1
Error: Too many arguments in call to 'shape' at (1)
---
Some other case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429
Bug ID: 77429
Summary: ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at
fortran/dependency.c:1261
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77352
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 31 18:42:55 2016
New Revision: 239904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/77352
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_trans_omp_parallel_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77374
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 31 18:42:08 2016
New Revision: 239903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239903&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/77374
* parse.c (parse_omp_oacc_atomic): Copy o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71345
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77426
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73714
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42669
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77427
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77428
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 39528
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39528&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77428
Bug ID: 77428
Summary: incorrect 'set but not used' warning with @throw
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: obj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #44 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Szőts Ákos from comment #43)
> Yes, I can agree with this reasoning. However, when you remove either the
> "while" or the "if" statements, the warning disappears. I don't think they
> should hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77417
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73714
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Wed Aug 31 18:22:58 2016
New Revision: 239902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239902&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
match.pd: Revert a * (1 << b) relaxation.
2016-08-31 Marc Glisse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77427
Bug ID: 77427
Summary: ice when canonical types differ for identical types
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't really like that. The linker has all the info to remove unused
mergeable constants or strings, so if it doesn't do that now, it should be
changed to do that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 39526
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39526&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Aug 31 17:54:32 2016
New Revision: 239901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-08-31 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/77393
* gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Aug 31 17:45:26 2016
New Revision: 239900
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239900&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-08-31 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/77393
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
--- Comment #18 from Walter Spector ---
Awesome!
I have noticed one bug so far. The compiler is missing a check to see if the
arguments in the I/O procedures have the 'optional' attribute. It is allowing
the attribute - even though it is illeg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> That doesn't make sense. The mergeable sections really need to be the same,
> otherwise nothing gets merged. And, unused constants/strings in those can
> be removed i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh one more I missed. alter_output_for_subst_insn in gensupport.c has:
if (alt < 2 || *insn_out == '*' || *insn_out != '@')
return insn_out;
The second condition is redundant, since if it's == '*' t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77426
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Remaining issues:
find_structure in gengtype.c does:
structures = s;
s->kind = kind;
s->u.s.tag = name;
structures = s;
The first assignment is redundant.
ix86_expand_args_builtin in gcc/config/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 39525
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39525&action=edit
Patch to fix most of the reported issues.
I've created three new bugs for cases where the fix isn't clear. Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'd also encourage people to look at these issues for ideas for new
warnings in GCC, if they can define a warning case that's plausible to
check for in GCC with a low false-positive rate (s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77426
Bug ID: 77426
Summary: Duplicate condition in expmed.c
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77425
Bug ID: 77425
Summary: Pointer test follows dereference in sched-int.h
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424
Bug ID: 77424
Summary: Identical statements in if-else branches
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 39524
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39524&action=edit
gcc7-pr65467-wip.patch
Untested WIP patch. This attempts to handle _Atomic qualified vars/expressions
etc. wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77423
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61513
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77423
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77423
Bug ID: 77423
Summary: -Wlogical-not-parentheses false positive for bitwise
expression with _Bool operands
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16519
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-07-19 05:27:40 |2016-8-31
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-fdata-sections should put |-fdata-sections should put
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70081
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422
Bug ID: 77422
Summary: -fdata-sections should put each string literal in its
own section
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59055
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
Bug ID: 77421
Summary: Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt ---
> What do you mean by size of a stack slot?
On s390, if we have one "int" variables on the stack, this uses a "slot" 4
bytes. The stack pointer maintains an 8 byte alignmet though, i.e. SP is
changec by 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-ibm-aix*|powerpc*-*-*
--- Comment #12 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151
--- Comment #22 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Confirmed that it's a linker issue related to adjusting reloc addends in the
presence of align directives. Found two separate bugs, will post patches later
this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt ---
But does that really match the Abi? On s390 (31 bit) we have an 8 byte aligned
stack pointer, but the size of a stack slot is just 4 bytes, so the offset from
the stack pointer may just be a multiple of 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
I was thinking more of
#define STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET(FUNDECL) \
(RS6000_ALIGN (crtl->outgoing_args_size, \
(TARGET_ALTIVEC |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77420
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
--- Comment #9 from Dominik Vogt ---
> AIX increased the alignment when Altivec support was added. It
> appears that STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET should add a test for AIX.
Is the alignment of the dynamic area part of the AIX Abi?
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
