P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arigo at tunes dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 47053
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47053&action=edit
creduce'd C source that miscompiles in -O&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #1 from Armin Rigo ---
Comment on attachment 47053
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47053
creduce'd C source that miscompiles in -O>=1
BTW I just noticed that the reduced code is highly self-recursive, but that's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #2 from Armin Rigo ---
Created attachment 47054
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47054&action=edit
slightly different version, with comments showing the expected values
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #7 from Armin Rigo ---
Created attachment 47056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47056&action=edit
made the example runnable
Here is a main(). Compare:
* gcc -Og foomin3.c foomin3main.c && a.out
* gcc -O1 foomin3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92131
--- Comment #8 from Armin Rigo ---
I'd like to point out that the problem only shows up with all the extra lines
of code that appear unrelated: everything before the loop, and the first half
of the loop itself (the switch-with-goto with cases 8 a
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arigo at tunes dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Tested on gcc_5_branch:
extern void abort(void);
void f(int a, int b, int *r)
{
if (__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, r))
abort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70734
--- Comment #4 from Armin Rigo ---
Ah, sorry about that; I only checked the 5.x branch. My mistake.
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arigo at tunes dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40930
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40930&action=edit
reproducer, linux x86-64, gcc -lm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79973
--- Comment #3 from Armin Rigo ---
Indeed, thanks for the feedback.
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arigo at tunes dot org
Target Milestone: ---
The following occurs in `gcc_5_branch` but not in the 5.3.0 release tag.
The C front-end misinterprets arrays of constants which are passed as function
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: arigo at tunes dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 35913
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35913&action=edit
Input incorrectly compiled with gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
--- Comment #1 from Armin Rigo ---
Update: found out that the %gs prefix is correctly present when I compile with
"gcc -O1 -fno-ivopts bug1.c -S". So ivopts might be the place to look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
--- Comment #2 from Armin Rigo ---
Actually "gcc -O1 -fno-tree-loop-optimize bug1.c -S" also restores the %gs
prefix. I suspect however that this flag implies "-fno-ivopts", or something.
I found no other "-fno-xxx" that, when given alone, rest
13 matches
Mail list logo
