https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
Jeremy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58530|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
Jeremy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58530|a-g.i |a-g.s
filename|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy ---
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/14.1.0/lto-wrapper
Target: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --with-cpu=cort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy ---
gcc -std=gnu23 g.c -DEDITOR=0 -O3 -Wall -Wextra -Wconversion -Wunused
-Wuninitialized -Wcast-qual -Wcast-align -Werror -march=native -mcpu=native
-mtune=native -pipe -funsigned-char -fwrapv -ffinite-math-only -mcmo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115680
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy ---
Created attachment 58531
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58531&action=edit
.i file from save-temps containing pre-processed source
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc.hall at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 58530
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58530&action=edit
.s containing machine details
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90628
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> Thanks for the report.
> (next time, please include a complete, compilable example, with the
> #includes, int main, etc)
Sorry, here is a complete program:-
#include
i
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc.hall at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code compiles without any warning. The same applies to add and
sub. It does the multiply correctly.
const int a = argc;
const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86686
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy ---
Further investigation revealed that this was due to lack of disk space.
GCC 8.2 seems to need much more than GCC 8.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86686
Jeremy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86686
Jeremy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc.hall at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
g++ -std=gnu++98 -fno-PIE -c -DIN_GCC_FRONTEND -g -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77332
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I can't reproduce it. It seems to happen in stage2 (-g -gtoggle) and I'm
> past that trying to reproduce (also that's the only stage where checking
> code is run).
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77332
Jeremy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc.hall at gmail dot com
Severity
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc.hall at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Linux x86_64.
Configured with: ../configure --disable-multilib --enable-languages=c,c++
The build failed with:-
/tmp/gcc-6.2.0/obj/./prev-gcc/xg++ -B/tmp/gcc-6.2.0/obj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #11 from Jeremy ---
int32_t n;
asm( "str %1,[%0],#4" : "+r" (ptr) : "r" (n) : "memory" );
Caught me until I just happened to examine the assembler.
Of course %w1 works - but then I need SEPARATE code for 32-bit ARM and for
aarch64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
--- Comment #17 from Jeremy ---
Did you mean "stc" rather than "setc" ???
But yes, it looks like its working well.
On 20 July 2015 at 10:05, gccbugzilla at limegreensocks dot com <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
--- Comment #15 from Jeremy ---
Perhaps the optimizer can reduce "seta; test; jnz" to "ja" since the
compiler now knows the intention. In which case this is a great solution.
On 17 July 2015 at 22:24, gccbugzilla at limegreensocks dot com <
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
--- Comment #12 from Jeremy ---
Hi David,
That's very interesting. Its not in gcc 5.2.0 released yesterday though.
It probably does a setcc on x86 which doesn't really gain much, but on ARM
it could be useful.
More useful (as of gcc 5.0) is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66112
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy ---
Comment on attachment 35522
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35522
gcc5-pr66112.patch
Done, PR66120
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc.hall at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Please see related PR66112 for x86
---
#include
#include
int
main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66112
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy ---
Related FYI,
Few instructions on ARM set the overflow flag. Two that do are 32-bit add and
subtract. For these two, GCC could just emit "adds" followed by "bvs"
Instead it produces:-
bl atoi@
add r1
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc.hall at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I am using all the three signed integer overflow builtin's for the four
types: int8_t, int16_t, int32_t and int64_t on Intel x64. In all cases except
one this pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
--- Comment #8 from Jeremy ---
Asm goto does not allow any outputs, which does limit its usefulness.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
Jeremy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc.hall at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56940
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy 2013-04-13 07:58:24 UTC
---
> You should report this failure to where you got the binary from really.
Yes, sorry. They should be distributing a supported version too.
I suspect this is an ARM issue.
The p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56940
Bug #: 56940
Summary: internal compiler error: unrecognizable insn:
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55383
Bug #: 55383
Summary: -Wcast-qual reports incorrect message
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50975
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy 2011-11-03 12:37:41 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> But ... you can't tell the difference. So this is a valid optimization.
You can tell the difference in execution time.
And why is this an "optimization"? In thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50975
Bug #: 50975
Summary: Logical operators evaluated in wrong order if no side
effects
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50347
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy 2011-09-10 21:57:59 UTC
---
I think also the doc needs changing for __builtin_bswap64/32 as it looks like
they accept and return unsigned integers. uint64_t instead of int64_t.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50347
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy 2011-09-10 10:15:15 UTC
---
I see this builtin is presumably intended to implement the library function
ffsll() which takes a signed argument. In which case this is just a
documentation issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50347
Bug #: 50347
Summary: unexpected -Wconversion error from gcc builtin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50228
Bug #: 50228
Summary: Incorrect line execution count.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33349
Jeremy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc.hall at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49410
Summary: Internal compiler error in change-stack at
reg-stack.c:2540
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47351
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy 2011-01-19 13:06:41 UTC
---
Done. I can report that the problem does not occur with GCC 4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47351
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy 2011-01-18 21:11:23 UTC
---
Please find attached the source file g.c and the makefile.
The target "asm" causes the crash. The target "win" does a successful build.
The program is a small screen editor, it is self c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47351
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy 2011-01-18 21:08:37 UTC
---
Created attachment 23022
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23022
the makefile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47351
Summary: Segmentation fault in MinGW
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47186
Summary: -O2 moves invariant address load INTO loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46599
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy 2010-11-22 12:22:48 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> -minline-all-stringops isn't supposed to be used (it's for debugging), and
> probably doesn't mix well with -Os anyway.
OK thanks. I think in this context its a r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46599
Summary: Possible enhancement for inline stringops with -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assign
43 matches
Mail list logo
