Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bp at alien8 dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Hi all,
this came up recently on the kernel ML (see
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200402134051.gc9...@zn.tnic) and we thought it
might be a good idea to support it. In the same
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bp at alien8 dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 47435
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47435&action=edit
prepocessed source
Hi,
I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92841
--- Comment #5 from Boris ---
Hohumm, looks good - this is the same site it generated with your patch:
# arch/x86/kernel/cpu/scattered.c:48: {
movq%gs:40, %rax# MEM[( long unsigned int
*)40B], prephitmp_18
movq%rax, 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92841
--- Comment #6 from Boris ---
Ok, so there was a mix-up between patterns with and without multi-nodes
in your untested fix, which Micha found and fixed, see attached patch.
(otherwise it wouldn't even build a whole kernel).
With it, it fixed the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92841
--- Comment #7 from Boris ---
Created attachment 47465
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47465&action=edit
Micha's patterns fix
Fix for mix-up between patterns with and without multi-nodes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92841
--- Comment #10 from Boris ---
Ok, fair enough. After all, security is not free. :)
If you need me to test anything else, lemme know.
Thx guys.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55759
Bug #: 55759
Summary: bogus warning when building drivers/ata/libata-core.c
in v3.7 of the linux kernel
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55759
--- Comment #2 from Boris 2012-12-20 16:20:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 29015
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29015
gzipped preprocessed source of drivers/ata/libata-core.c
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bp at alien8 dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Building the below on x86-64 with gcc9, gcc10 and Segher built with gcc11
20201015:
---
int main(void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
--- Comment #2 from Boris ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> "g" constraint won't work here:
So in that case gcc should fail the build. Which it does not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
--- Comment #7 from Boris ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I agree with Andrew here, the compiler does what it is asked to do, so puts
> the value into either memory or general purpose register. Neither "r" nor
> "g" allows putt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
--- Comment #11 from Boris ---
Drop "general":
"‘g’ Any register, memory or immediate integer operand is allowed."
because, as you guys say, it would stick it anywhere.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
--- Comment #13 from Boris ---
Then you'd need to add a sentence saying that the register asm() specification
has lower prio and thus overridden by the input operand constraint. Which is
what we have here. And then refer to the text Segher posted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
--- Comment #16 from Boris ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> No, why? You ask it to go into a general register, so it goes there. The
> local register variable has no priority at all.
And where in the documentation does it say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708
--- Comment #18 from Boris ---
It would be awesome if this text continued:
"... and specify any constraint letter that matches the register. If the
operand constraint doesn't match the register, former has higher priority over
the local register
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bp at alien8 dot de
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
clang has this -Wsection diag which does:
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wsection
It would be good to have it in gcc too so that declarations like
extern u64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106571
--- Comment #2 from Boris ---
How can you check a mismatch if only the definition has the section attribute?
Here's the kernel commit which fixes this for clang:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=db8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106571
--- Comment #5 from Boris ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #4)
> Boris: what does DECLARE_PER_CPU() expand into? Are there other attributes
> that could be usefully checked for mismatch between decl and def?
Unfortunately,
DECLARE_P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78736
Boris changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bp at alien8 dot de
--- Comment #20 from Boris
19 matches
Mail list logo
