https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #22)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #19)
> > *** Bug 106939 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
> Provided that many duplicates (even nested --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #22 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #19)
> *** Bug 106939 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Provided that many duplicates (even nested -- see that bug too) -- everyone
expects this to work. W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cooper.qu at linux dot
alibaba.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stian.skjelstad at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neoxic at icloud dot com
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 2 08:29:48 2016
New Revision: 241776
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241776&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78035
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> > lots of them that rely on pointer arithmetics being defined only within the
> > same object.
>
> Sure, but the tw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #16 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> lots of them that rely on pointer arithmetics being defined only within the
> same object.
Sure, but the two pointers (taken implicitly of the arrays) are within
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #14)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #9)
> > > Is subtracting undefined, too?
> > Yes. Comparing two unr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #14 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #9)
> > Is subtracting undefined, too?
> Yes. Comparing two unrelated arrays or subtracting them is undefined.
But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://marc.info/?t=1466867
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jirislaby at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Looks like a kernel issue. An asm ("", "+r"(x)); is needed in the source for
> __start_builtin_fw and __end_builtin_fw
Shouldn't we recommend "+g" instead of "+r"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #9)
> Is subtracting undefined, too?
Yes. Comparing two unrelated arrays or subtracting them is undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> You don't need it for both.
> struct builtin_fw *b_fw = __start_builtin_fw;
> asm ("" : "+r" (b_fw));
> for (; b_fw != __end_builtin_fw; b_fw++) {
> should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You don't need it for both.
struct builtin_fw *b_fw = __start_builtin_fw;
asm ("" : "+r" (b_fw));
for (; b_fw != __end_builtin_fw; b_fw++) {
should be enough. And indeed, without that it is undefined b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is change:
extern struct builtin_fw __start_builtin_fw[];
extern struct builtin_fw __end_builtin_fw[];
static bool fw_get_builtin_firmware(struct firmware *fw, const char *name,
void *buf, size_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Can you bisect? Suspect changes might be the shrink wrapping changes from
> last night - r241063 and r241059-r241061.
It is much older issue. Even gcc from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
23 matches
Mail list logo
