--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #7 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-11-04 23:28
---
With Mike's description in comment #6, confirmed on 4.1.2 and 4.2.2. AVR GCC
4.2.2 is worse than 4.1.2, in that even if sub2 is called with (x+1), the
variable is still 16 bits.
--
eweddington at cs
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-11-01 17:47
---
Mike, can you provide additional information as to where the bug is?
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-11-01 17:45
---
Created an attachment (id=14455)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14455&action=view)
Assembly output of test case using 4.1.2.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't even see it
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-11-01 17:28
---
Created an attachment (id=14454)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14454&action=view)
Preprocessed testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33970
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-10-07 19:48
---
Changing target milestone to 4.2.3. Hopefully the attached patch will be
committed by then.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-10-07 19:46
---
Created an attachment (id=14316)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14316&action=view)
Patch by Anatoly Sokolov
Proposed patch by Anatoly Sokolov.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-24 01:45
---
Subject: RE: Double load of volatile operand for abs
builtin
> --- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
> 2007-09-23 12:35 ---
> Please re-confirm this if this still happe
--- Comment #27 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-19 17:57
---
Created an attachment (id=14224)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14224&action=view)
Rask's patch modified from comments.
Here is Rask's patch again, but slightly
--- Comment #26 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-19 05:28
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> > c:/avrdev/gcc/gcc-4.3-20070914/libobjc/Object.m:66: error:
> unrecognizable
> > insn:
> > (insn
--- Comment #24 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-18 19:06
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> --- Comment #23 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org
>
> In define_insn_and_split "*movhi&
--- Comment #22 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-17 22:53
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> --- Comment #21 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org
> 2007-09-17 11:13 ---
> It's probably someti
--- Comment #20 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-17 02:31
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> Here's a patch which doesn't mess up the stack pointer update
> in the epilogue.
>
Hi Rask,
--- Comment #18 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-16 15:44
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> --- Comment #15 from rask at gcc dot gnu dot org
> 2007-09-16 12:57 ---
> Also, it seems to me t
--- Comment #13 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-11 16:10
---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Andy Hutchinson wrote (comment #6) that addition a 'movdi' instruction
> improves
> the result. I have try to add a very simple 'movdi' (which spli
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-04 04:02
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Yes and this correct.
Andrew,
Are you saying that this bug is invalid? If so, then it needs to be closed as
such.
Thanks
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33287
--- Comment #13 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-04 03:46
---
Seems to be fixed in 4.2.1, at least. I haven't tried earlier releases.
Changing target milestone and closing bug.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Re
--- Comment #6 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-09-04 03:37
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Patch to document AVR progmem attribute:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01832.html
>
Now committed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg00159.h
--- Comment #40 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-29 18:06
---
(In reply to comment #39)
> Created an attachment (id=14131)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14131&action=view) [edit]
> another test case
>
> This test case only ha
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-28 23:31
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Confirmed bug, and verified patch fixes bug.
>
... For the AVR port only.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33028
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-28 23:30
---
Confirmed bug, and verified patch fixes bug.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-24 20:41
---
(In reply to comment #3)
4.3.0 20070817 snapshot produces this for the second test case:
test:
push r17
/* prologue: function */
/* frame size = 0 */
mov r17,r24
call foo
add
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-24 20:35
---
Created an attachment (id=14108)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14108&action=view)
Test case assembler output for 4.3.0 20070817 snapshot.
Again, only marginally better.
--
--- Comment #6 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-24 20:30
---
Created an attachment (id=14107)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14107&action=view)
Test case assembler output for 4.2.1.
Not really any better than 4.1.2.
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-24 20:25
---
Created an attachment (id=14106)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14106&action=view)
Correct assembler output of test case for 4.1.2.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com
--- Comment #12 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-23 22:26
---
Seems to be fixed in 4.3 20070817 snapshot.
An additional minor patch is needed, not for this bug, but to allow Objective-C
to build for the AVR. (It's unknown if Objective-C will actually *work* on th
--- Comment #15 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-23 20:39
---
Closing bug as WORKSFORME based on Bjoern's observations in comment #13.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
Priority|P2 |P5
--- Comment #7 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-23 20:10
---
Confirmed for AVR. GCC 4.2.1 for avr generates this:
foo:
/* prologue: frame size=0 */
push r14
push r15
push r16
push r17
/* prologue end (size=4) */
movw r14,r22
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-22 17:48
---
Bug fixed in 4.3.0 20070817 snapshot.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-22 17:16
---
Confirmed on the AVR target for 4.3.0 20070817 snapshot.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-22 17:09
---
4.3.0 20070817 snapshot generates this for the testcase:
test2:
push r16
push r17
/* prologue: function */
/* frame size = 0 */
mov r16,r24
ldi r24,lo8(10)
call foo
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-08-22 16:57
---
Wouter, please attach the assembly output that you are getting for your test.c
file using 4.1.2. That way we can compare it to other compiler versions.
Thanks,
Eric
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #11 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-27 14:23
---
Subject: RE: [avr-gcc] Optimization decrease performance of
struct assignment.
> --- Comment #10 from dmixm at marine dot febras dot ru
> 2007-07-27 01:24 ---
> Yes, results are:
&g
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-25 17:57
---
The AVR test results for a 4.2.1 prerelease still shows failure on -O0 only:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-07/msg00335.html
However the results for a 4.3 snapshot shows failure on all -O
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-25 17:42
---
Confirmed for 4.2.1 on mingw host.
test.cpp: In function 'T* rom(const T&) [with T = uint8_t]':
test.cpp:21: instantiated from here
test.cpp:10: internal compiler error: Segm
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-25 17:29
---
Confirmed on 4.2.1.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-25 17:05
---
Patch to document AVR progmem attribute:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01832.html
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-25 00:04
---
Bug still exists on 4.2.1.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-24 23:50
---
Version 4.2.1 offers somewhat better results:
With -O0:
.file "test.c"
/* File "test.c": code 109 = 0x006d ( 74), prologues 18, epilogues 17 */
With -O[123s]:
.fil
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.2.1 |4.2.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29524
--- Comment #9 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-07-23 22:57
---
Here's what I see:
The array __clz_tab is used in a macro, count_leading_zeros, which is called in
the function __clzSI2 in libgcc2.c, which (AFAICT) gets compiled to the
function __clzsi2 and aggregat
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31331
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-06-28 19:48
---
Closing bug as WORKSFORME.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-06-23 15:39
---
Works for me with gcc 4.2.0 and binutils 2.17.
Andreas, what version of binutils are you using?
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-06-18 22:01
---
The attached patch, written by Anatoly Sokolov, fixes the bug.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-06-18 22:00
---
Created an attachment (id=13733)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13733&action=view)
Patch to fix bug, written by Anatoly Sokolov
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31331
--- Comment #12 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-06-10 16:50
---
According to a comment in duplicate bug #24894, bug #19636 may be related.
Ralf, can you try the test case using a 4.3 snapshot?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31786
--- Comment #11 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-06-10 16:43
---
*** Bug 24894 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-06-10 16:43
---
This looks like a duplicate of bug #31786. Closing this bug as #31786 has more
analysis in the comments and is confirmed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 31786 ***
--
eweddington at cso
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 23:20
---
Also fails -O0 in latest 4.3 HEAD:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-05/msg01434.html
but -O0 still passes in 4.2.1 20070525:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-05/msg01304.html
--
http
--- Comment #9 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 22:40
---
Testing for bug:
- r19 is modified, but not saved
avr-gcc -c -O1 bug.i -funroll-loops:
- fails with 4.2.0
- succeeds with 4.3-20070525
avr-gcc -c -O1 bug.i:
- succeeds with 4.2.0
--
eweddington at cso
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 22:18
---
f32.c succeeds for
4.1.2, -O[0123s]
4.2.0, -O[0123s]
4.3-20070525, -O[0123s]
Lowering priority.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #38 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 20:59
---
termios.c successful for 4.2.0, 4.3-20070525, for all -Ox.
arpcache.i successful for 4.2.0, 4.3-20070525, for all -Ox.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18251
--- Comment #37 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 20:54
---
test.c fails in 4.2.0 for -Os only, -O[0123] works.
test.c succeeds for 4.3-20070525 for all -O[0123s].
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 20:40
---
Fails for 4.3-20070525
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 20:29
---
*** Bug 21834 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 20:29
---
Marking this bug as duplicate of bug #27386 because that bug has reduced test
case and more analysis.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 27386 ***
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com
--- Comment #10 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 20:09
---
Test case fails for 4.3-20070525.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 19:34
---
Testcase fails for 4.2.0 and 4.3-20070525.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 19:23
---
Bug still present in 4.2.0, and 4.3-20070525.
To test bug (fixed from last comment):
avr-gcc -Os shifty3.i -o shifty3.o
avr-objdump -d shifty3.o > shifty3.dis
Compare output.
--
eweddington at cso
--- Comment #19 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 18:59
---
Testcase succeeds with 4.3-20070525, with all -O settings. Changing target
milestone to 4.3.0, lowering priority.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-30 18:09
---
Fails with 4.3-20070525, and with 4.2.0, with same error, but line 54 in
rtlhooks.c.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-22 14:24
---
Subject: RE: ICEs on compilation of ada support library for
avr
> -Original Message-
> From: charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22,
--- Comment #18 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-21 17:17
---
Using the target specific option -mno-tablejump fixes the bug for 4.1.2 and
4.2.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19636
--- Comment #17 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-21 17:09
---
Fails on 4.2.0.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-21 17:03
---
Fails with 4.1.2.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #25 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-20 16:22
---
Subject: RE: Implement binary constants with a "0b"
prefix
>
> --- Comment #24 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
> 2007-05-19 16:21 ---
> Joerg,
>
> any news a
--- Comment #9 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-04 16:06
---
>From Bjoern Haase:
Hi all,
I think that we could resolve this ICE by adding an unnamed pattern like
(define_insn "*strangeMovhi"
[(set (mem:HI (plus:HI (reg:HI 28)
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-03 17:06
---
Confirmed. Also fails for 4.1.2.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-03 16:56
---
Confirmed on GCC 4.1.2.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-03 16:40
---
Confirmed. Code snippet fails for 4.1.2 when compiling for -O2 and -O3. Note
that compiling with -O[0,1,s] is successful.
Changing target to all avr.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-03 13:05
---
Subject: RE: error: unable to find a register to spill in
class 'BASE_POINTER_REGS'
> --- Comment #2 from ralf_corsepius at rtems dot org
> 2007-05-03 10:27 ---
> I can als
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-02 20:34
---
This must be specific to RTEMS/newlib, as 4.2.0-20070430 (RC2) builds without
error with:
CFLAGS=-D__USE_MINGW_ACCESS \
../gcc-$version/configure \
--prefix=$installdir \
--target=avr \
--enable
--- Comment #2 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-02 20:28
---
Woops! Thanks for catching that! I forgot I had --disable-fixincludes still in
there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31790
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com
GCC host triplet: mingw
GCC target triplet: avr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31790
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC
--- Comment #5 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-26 21:44
---
The committed patch fixes this warning:
../../gcc/gcc/varasm.c: In function `assemble_variable':
../../gcc/gcc/varasm.c:1699: warning: empty body in an if-statement
However, the following warning
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-25 18:04
---
Note that the -MM-DD date format is ISO standard 8601, which also includes
formats for time as well.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
Any new formats for __DATE__ and __TIME__ should pr
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-25 16:34
---
This is very probably an mcore target issue. The test case passes for the AVR
target for 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 with all -O settings (0,1,2,3,s).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31702
--- Comment #15 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-11 04:20
---
Bernd, Rolf,
Can you verify if this bug still exists? If so, I have in my notes that this
patch will fix this bug:
<http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/avr-ada/trunk/patches/gcc-4.1-integer-
--- Comment #6 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-10 14:11
---
Danny,
Can you take a look at this bug and the corresponding patch in comment #5? This
issue has been around a long time, and the fix has worked for a long time too.
It would be nice if the fix could be
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31137
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|4.1.1 |
GCC host triplet|AVR |
GCC target
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-09 23:33
---
Bernd, what mcu type was this compiled for?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27663
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18553
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19087
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-09 04:01
---
Correcting target milestone to 4.1.3.
--
eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-05 18:07
---
This is a duplicate of bug #22133.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29851
--- Comment #1 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-04 23:46
---
Confirmed on 4.1.1.
Please add wrong-code to Keyword list.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30289
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-04 13:41
---
Created an attachment (id=13327)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13327&action=view)
Patch by Anatoly Sokolov
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29932
--- Comment #4 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-04 00:38
---
Confirmed bug.
shifty3.i is a test case showing the problem. Compiled with avr-gcc 4.1.2,
with:
avr-gcc -Os shifty.c -o shifty.o
shifty3.dis is a disassembly of shifty.o (with avr-objdump -d shifty.o).
The
--- Comment #3 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-04-04 00:25
---
Created an attachment (id=13325)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13325&action=view)
Disassembly of the shifty3.i test case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27192
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
