https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112574
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117886
--- Comment #6 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 59794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59794&action=edit
Patch to fix the issue
I cannot use your reproducer, I get the following error:
main.c: In function ‘create_code’:
m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117886
--- Comment #5 from Antoni ---
Andrew: what would be a better way to write this function?
I do have the code in my fork to fix this specific error. I'm preparing a patch
that will also fix other issues with this code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108762
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112602
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113343
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116725
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116725
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59199|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396
--- Comment #5 from Antoni ---
I believe so, but there might always be cases that we need to fix.
Why do you ask? Did you get any issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116725
--- Comment #6 from Antoni ---
Actually, the bug was not fixed on master: I was confusing my gcc install
directories.
I'll send the real patch soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116725
--- Comment #4 from Antoni ---
It seems like this bug might already be fixed on master (my branch is old and I
just rebased).
I'll do more tests to confirm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116725
--- Comment #3 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 59199
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59199&action=edit
Tentative fix for the issue
I have the following that seems to fix the issue.
I don't know if this is the correct way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116725
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59115|0 |1
is obsolete|
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 59115
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59115&acti
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
In the following code:
void test(int *ptr) {
*ptr = *(volatile int *)ptr;
}
The volatile read is optimized away and GCC produces the following asm:
test(int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113923
--- Comment #9 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 57810
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57810&action=edit
Patch to fix the issue
I was unable to create a reproducer in C for the tests.
It seems the problem was actually in l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114285
--- Comment #8 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 57726
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57726&action=edit
Reproducer using union
I tried switching to a union and I still get the same error.
A union is used by std::optional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114285
--- Comment #5 from Antoni ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> >Rust will sometimes copy uninitialized memory and I'd like to avoid
> >disabling this specific warning.
>
>
> Note in C, there are specific rules about copying unit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114285
--- Comment #4 from Antoni ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> >Rust will sometimes copy uninitialized memory and I'd like to avoid
> >disabling this specific warning.
>
>
> Note in C, there are specific rules about copying unit
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 57655
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57655&action=edit
Reproducer for the bug
Hi.
Not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113923
--- Comment #8 from Antoni ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> inlined_call_event's ctor should probably assert that params
> tree apparent_callee_fndecl,
> tree apparent_caller_fndecl,
> are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113923
--- Comment #7 from Antoni ---
I don't know if this helps, but I added a small Rust reproducer that can
trigger the segfault when compiled with rustc_codegen_gcc and the corresponding
GIMPLE for this Rust reproducer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113923
--- Comment #6 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 57439
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57439&action=edit
Rust reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113923
--- Comment #5 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 57438
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57438&action=edit
GIMPLE for the Rust reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113923
--- Comment #4 from Antoni ---
I might be able to soon create a reproducer, but for now, I can say it might be
related to __attribute__ ((always_inline)).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112575
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi.
I cannot easily produce a reproducer for this since I got this when compiling a
Rust project (librsvg) via rustc_codegen_gcc.
The project was compiled with this command
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This happens when compiling code with try/catch, so not yet possible to trigger
on master.
I'll soon post the patch to fix
y: P3
Component: regression
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
With the following code:
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
__uint128_t res = __builtin_bswap128 (2);
printf("Value: %ld\n", res
Component: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Values created by gcc_jit_context_new_rvalue_from_double are wrong when
cross-compiling to an arch where the encoding of floats is different than the
host.
I'll soon p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112910
--- Comment #3 from Antoni ---
Yes, but it isn't available in recording.
Perhaps I could use it with another solution that is in the work, though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112910
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 56831
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56831&action=edit
Patch fixing this bug
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
It seems that MAX_BITS_PER_WORD is not the same as the size of size_t on some
platforms.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108762
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #54452|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112603
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 56628
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56628&action=edit
Patch
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'll soon send a patch for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112602
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 56627
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56627&action=edit
Patch
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'll soon send a patch for this feature request.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112576
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 56611
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56611&action=edit
Patch
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'll soon post a patch that fixes this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112575
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 56610
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56610&action=edit
Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112574
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 56609
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56609&action=edit
Patch
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'll soon post a patch to fix this.
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'll soon post a patch for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396
--- Comment #2 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 56554
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56554&action=edit
Patch fixing the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112466
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 56547
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56547&action=edit
Patch implementing this feature
Component: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I have an incoming patch for this that I'll post soon.
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 55888
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55888&action=edit
Reproducer for part of the bug
Hi.
There's a bug when compiling multipl
tatus: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi.
With those two source files:
a.c:
#in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108762
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 54452
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54452&action=edit
Add support for machine-dependant builtins
Component: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'll soon post a patch for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107999
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/jit/2022q4/001594.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96089
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108078
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'll soon post a patch to fix this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107770
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The error message needs to be updated to make this test pass again.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi.
When I compile the following code:
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
__m256i a = _mm256_set1_epi8(4
onent: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'll soon post a patch to fix this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106095
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105812
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106095
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 53212
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53212&action=edit
patch fixing the bug
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Some builtins don't produce valid asm when using the flag `-masm=intel`:
* __builtin_ia32_pmovdw128mem_mask
* __builtin_ia32_cvtss2sd_mask_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105829
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105829
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 53075
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53075&action=edit
First patch
: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Currently, it's only possible to get the size of integer types.
I'll soon post a patch that adds support of getting the size of floating-point
types.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105827
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 53074
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53074&action=edit
First patch
: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
There's an infinite recursion in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node.
I'm not sure how exactly to reproduce it or to test it, so if you have any idea
of tests I could add, pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105812
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 53067
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53067&action=edit
Patch
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
When using a combination of unary and binary expressions on a boolean value, we
can trigger the error "type mismatch in binary expression".
I'm about to post a patch for this issue.
Component: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi.
I'm opening this issue to track my upcoming patch adding support for setting
the alignment of variables in libgccjit.
: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi.
One issue I have for my work on adding support for 128-bit integers is that the
way libgccjit works does not allow knowing before compiling whether those
integers are
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi.
I'm opening this issue to track my upcoming patch adding support for register
variables in libgccjit.
: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi.
I'm opening this issue to track my upcoming patch to add support for bitcasts
in libgccjit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95415
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96066
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96889
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95325
--- Comment #3 from Antoni ---
No.
The only patch that is ready for review is "libgccjit: add some reflection
functions in the jit C api".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100380
--- Comment #7 from Antoni ---
Since then, I found a workaround to fix the similar segfault in my other
feature.
It might work for solving this and goes like this:
instead of trying to access the rvalue when first replaying the asm, create an
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95498
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96089
--- Comment #2 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 50851
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50851&action=edit
Add patch to set an arbitrary value to a global variable
I made this patch to set an arbitrary value to a global varia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #5 from Antoni ---
This is much less work as I'm reusing the rustc front-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #3 from Antoni ---
I develop a gcc codegen for the Rust compiler and it's a feature of Rust to be
able to set the link section:
https://github.com/antoyo/rustc_codegen_gcc/commit/999f768526d72e19e3eafdc963dcb6af8a1afe60#diff-6bbb0145
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 50847
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50847&action=edit
Patch adding support for setting the link section
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi.
I'd like support to set the link section (i.e.
`__attribute__((section(".section")))`) in libgccjit.
A patch will follow soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95415
--- Comment #3 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 50842
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50842&action=edit
Patch to add this feature
I created a patch to add TLS variables.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95325
--- Comment #1 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 50835
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50835&action=edit
Patch add support for sized integer types
That patch not only add support for 128-bit integers, but also all other siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96067
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96066
--- Comment #4 from Antoni ---
*** Bug 96067 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96066
--- Comment #3 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 50832
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50832&action=edit
Patch to fix the issues with using atomic builtins
I implemented the missing types and fixed the type checking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96079
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100380
--- Comment #5 from Antoni ---
I can confirm that the problem is indeed what I described in my previous post.
One solution would be to check if the rvalue was replayed (and if not, replay
it now), but that involves adding this check everywhere,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100380
--- Comment #4 from Antoni ---
I just had a similar issue when developing a new feature for libgccjit and it
might be the same problem. If it is (I haven't checked in this case), here's
what's happening:
* The asm is replayed.
* The asm tries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100380
--- Comment #2 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 50731
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50731&action=edit
Working code
So, the segfault seems to happen when creating the variable after creating the
extended asm expression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100380
Antoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50729|0 |1
is obsolete|
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bouanto at zoho dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 50729
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50729&action=edit
Reproducer for the bug
Hi.
The attached example produce a segfault when trying to compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100242
--- Comment #3 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 50668
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50668&action=edit
Smaller reproducer
Ok, I figured out how to find the location of the error.
In this case, it's caused by using the m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100242
--- Comment #2 from Antoni ---
Created attachment 50666
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50666&action=edit
Third part of the reproducer
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
