http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-04 01:42:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>
> I can not find any discussion about fixing this issue in any way other than
> forbidding it.
>
EBX is fixed in PIC. If it is changed in asm, it should be saved
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47383
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-04 04:12:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > looks wrong since it assumes D.2750_34 can be negative. But
>
> sizetype values are sign-extended.
>
ivopts uses unsigned on purpose and create_mem_ref isn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-04 15:01:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
>
> what way are we helping them by forcing them to know about it? How does that
> help them write inline assembler which, e.g., uses the cpuid instruction, or
U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43695
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-04 15:36:05
UTC ---
We should add this testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47613
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-05 14:48:07
UTC ---
On Fedora 14/x86-64, I got
[hjl@gnu-34 rrs]$ /usr/gcc-4.6/bin/gfortran pr47613.f90 -static
[hjl@gnu-34 rrs]$ ./a.out
-1 T
[hjl@gnu-34 rrs]$ /usr/gcc-4.6/bin/gfortran -v
Using buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47615
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47613
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-05 15:11:04
UTC ---
Revision 169847 also works for me on Fedora 14.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47613
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-05 17:50:43
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> For completeness, I'm seeing this issue on openSUSE 11.3 (x86_64) with
>
> What else can I do to nail this down?
Please show
# strace ./a.out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47613
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-05 18:14:14
UTC ---
On Fedora/14, I got
execve("./a.out", ["./a.out"], [/* 34 vars */]) = 0
uname({sys="Linux", node="gnu-34.sc.intel.com", ...}) = 0
brk(0) = 0x251d000
brk(0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47497
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-06 16:57:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > Honza? Why is -fwhole-program not ignored, or why should it not be?
> > Why does it make a difference at all here?
> Well, it is effectively ignored - i.e. on s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47623
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47623
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47619
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47639
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47640
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47646
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Revision 169918 caused many testsuite
failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47619
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47619
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-08 21:07:09
UTC ---
[hjl@gnu-6 pr47619]$ cat x.c
#include
#include
void foo( long i )
{
register void* rsp asm( "rsp" );
printf( "i = %ld, rsp = %p\n", i, rsp );
char buf[ 256 ];
memset( bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47619
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-08 21:31:12
UTC ---
(gdb) disass foo
Dump of assembler code for function foo:
0x00400ba4 <+0>:lea-0x4108(%rsp),%r11
0x00400bac <+8>:cmp%fs:0x70,%r11
0x00400bb5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47383
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47653
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47654
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47655
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47666
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from H.J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47697
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/template/inherit6.C
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47172
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47698
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-11 17:48:43
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> noce_operand_ok doesn't disregard volatile MEMs:
>
> /* We special-case memories, so handle any of them with
> no address side effects. */
> if (MEM_P (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47715
Summary: [x32] TLS doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47715
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-13 17:01:13
UTC ---
Another one:
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-14]$ cat s.c
struct initial_sp
{
void *sp;
long len;
};
__thread struct initial_sp __morestack_initial_sp;
void bar (void *);
void
foo ()
{
bar (&__mores
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
Summary: [x32] error: unable to find a register to spill in
class DIREG
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-14 01:28:08
UTC ---
I think this is similar to PR 47449.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-14 03:04:29
UTC ---
I am testing this patch:
diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c
index 5e1236b..78f3089 100644
--- a/gcc/combine.c
+++ b/gcc/combine.c
@@ -2138,6 +2138,12 @@ cant_combine_insn_p (rtx ins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727
Summary: [x32] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-14 03:36:51
UTC ---
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x00599a9f in init_alias_analysis ()
at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc-x32/gcc/alias.c:2863
2863 else if (DF_REG_DEF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-14 03:53:52
UTC ---
cse1 generates:
;; Succ edge EXIT [100.0%] (fallthru)
;; Insn is not within a basic block
(insn 63 57 64 (set (reg:SI 100)
(symbol_ref:SI ("__CTOR_END__") [flags 0x2] )) -1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-14 05:18:23
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> cse1 generates:
>
> ;; Succ edge EXIT [100.0%] (fallthru)
>
> ;; Insn is not within a basic block
> (insn 63 57 64 (set (reg:SI 100)
> (symbol_ref:SI (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
Summary|[x32] internal co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-14 13:51:27
UTC ---
Does this patch make any senses?
diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
index ce4eab4..e7e7890 100644
--- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
+++ b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
@@ -1099,10 +1099,13 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-14 14:06:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> Who generates insn #2? The machinery handling parameters in function.c? If
> so, maybe it should do the copy in the incoming mode instead:
>
> (insn 2 4 3 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-14 14:13:32
UTC ---
This seems to work:
diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
index 3f721fb..4c78407 100644
--- a/gcc/function.c
+++ b/gcc/function.c
@@ -3000,11 +3000,15 @@ assign_parm_setup_reg (struc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-14 14:34:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Not really. simplify-rtx should never emit new instuctions. Probably
> Ulrich, when introducing address-spaces didn't properly think about
> this in convert_memo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-14 17:24:56
UTC ---
The problem may be in convert_memory_address_addr_space:
case PLUS:
case MULT:
/* For addition we can safely permute the conversion and addition
operation if one oper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47735
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] Unnecessary adjustments to stack
pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47725
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
Summary: [x32] ICE: in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at
postreload.c:403
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from H.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47766
Summary: [x32] -fstack-protector doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47776
Summary: [4.6 Regression] New libstc++ test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47715
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-17 14:31:59
UTC ---
Another one:
[hjl@gnu-33 ilp32-23]$ cat x.i
struct gomp_team_state
{
struct gomp_team_state *prev_ts;
unsigned team_id;
unsigned level;
};
struct gomp_thread
{
void *data;
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47788
Summary: [4.6 Regression] New LTO failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47794
Summary: [4.6 Regression] New debug failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-18 14:05:00
UTC ---
Another testcase:
[hjl@gnu-33 ilp32-24]$ cat x.i
typedef long unsigned int size_t;
typedef long int ssize_t;
typedef ssize_t index_type;
typedef __int128_t GFC_INTEGER_16;
typedef struct de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47794
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47807
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Failed to bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47810
Summary: [4.6 Regression] New LTO/debug failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47812
Summary: [x32] __builtin_strlen is miscompiled at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47364
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-19 14:22:45
UTC ---
*** Bug 47812 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47812
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47820
Summary: [4.6 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47820
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47825
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47841
Summary: [4.6 Regression] New guality test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47841
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46002
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-21 21:45:47
UTC ---
Still fail on Linux/x86-64 as of revision 170371:
[hjl@gnu-34 gcc]$ /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-intel64corei7/bld/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-intel64corei7/bld/gcc/ -Os
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47863
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/allocate_deferred_char_scalar_1.f03
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47865
Summary: [4.6 Regression] exception_defines.h: No such file or
directory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47887
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: 187.facerec in SPEC CPU 2000 at
-O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47715
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-25 16:56:12
UTC ---
Thread pointer really should be 32bit in x32.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47403
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47715
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-25 21:23:10
UTC ---
*** Bug 47403 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47886
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-02-26 21:33:09
UTC ---
The new testcase failed with
spawn -ignore SIGHUP
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-ia32corei7/bld/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-ia32corei7/bld/gcc/t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47926
Summary: [x32] nested function pointer doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47927
Summary: GCC driver accepts bogus compiler options on assembly
input
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47933
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_fw_d.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47941
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/vla-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47744
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-03-01 17:27:00
UTC ---
Another one:
[hjl@gnu-6 ilp32-26]$ cat x.c
typedef union rtunion_def {
struct rtx_def *rtx;
} rtunion;
typedef struct rtx_def {
unsigned short code;
rtunion fld[1];
} *rtx;
extern rtx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47953
Summary: Code generation depends on function prototype
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47958
Summary: [x32] reload generates invalid address reference
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47953
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-03-02 17:09:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I suspect this is the same as bug 46076; at least it looks related.
I am not sure if they are related. Here we generate different codes
based on function prototyp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48000
Summary: [4.6 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57303
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
It is caused by revision 170984:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-03/msg00405.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57303
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
statement_sink_location in
/* A killing definition is not a use. */
if (gimple_assign_single_p (use_stmt)
&& gimple_vdef (use_stmt)
&& operand_equal_p (gimple_assign
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
On Linux/x32, I got
FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/if_test.c -O0 -fcilkplus execution test
FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/if_test.c -fcilkplus -O0 -std=c99
execution test
FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57452
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
We have
int main2 (int argc, char **argv);
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int x = 0;
if (argc == 1)
{
const char *array[] = {"a.out", "10", "15"};
x = main2 (3, (char **) array);
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
On Linux/x86-64, revision 199564 failed to bootstrap:
make[4]: Leaving directory `/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
warning
y: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
[hjl@gnu-6 tmp]$ cat a.cc
class Foo
{
public:
void yyy ();
};
void
Foo::yyy ()
{
}
[hjl@gnu-6 tmp]$ gcc -S a.cc -fno-align-functions -O3
[hjl@gnu-6 tmp]$ cat a.s
.file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57514
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: uros at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: i386
There is
/* X86_TUNE_UNROLL_STRLEN */
m_486 | m_PENT | m_PPRO | m_ATOM | m_CORE_ALL | m_K6 | m_AMD_MULTIPLE |
m_GENERIC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57536
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Also -Os generates larger code:
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ gcc -S -Os -m32 x.i
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ cat x.s
.file"x.i"
.text
.globlfoo
.typefoo, @function
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
pushl%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57536
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Something like this:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 8b28b61..6d11323 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -23101,21 +23101,32 @@ bool
ix86_expand_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57447
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> I see this problem also.
>
> Additional test case available on request.
Please upload a testcase here. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57988
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57954
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dushistov at mail dot ru
--- Comment #1 from H.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57954
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57954
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30560|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57927
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||areg.melikadamyan at gmail dot
com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
You can try this:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index a8d70bc..ab4dc6c 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -34466,7 +34466,7 @@ ix86_hard_regno_mode_ok
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> Yes and, although x86 is the dominant architecture, it shouldn't be allowed
> to penalize all the others. I think we should restrict the effect of
> r191928, in particu
901 - 1000 of 7256 matches
Mail list logo
