https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmargetts at ocz dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.4 |6.0
--- Comment #15 from Ramana R
||2016-03-31
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed - but not sure if this is a dup of PR48863
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13)
> Patch applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2016-03/msg00740.html - just in case someone
wants a link to it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Julien Margetts from comment #3)
> Are you suggesting you confirmed the patch associated with bug 62254 fixes
> this issue?
>
> As far as I can tell, in isolation at least, it does not
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70362
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fails at O0 in this case, I cannot type. I still think this is a tail from
PR62254 and that should just be reopened.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
int i;
void main (void)
{
__asm__ volatile (".arm");
i = 0;
__asm__ volatile ("\n cbz r0, 2f\n
||2016-04-01
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70496
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 38152
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38152&action=edit
Patch.
Patch I'm testing.
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2016-04-01
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Well confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70496
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Fri Apr 1 14:58:53 2016
New Revision: 234675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234675&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/70496
While doing the unified asm rewrite - I inadv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70496
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53440
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
A patch to fix this for TARGET_32BIT is here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00060.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #21 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #19)
> (In reply to Julien Margetts from comment #17)
> > The following test case still fails with the patch applied (originally bug
> > 70362)
> >
> > arm-non
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64971
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10)
> Ramana, do you want to give this to someone on your team to wrap up?
Kyrill, do you mind picking this up ?
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #
||arm
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2016-04-18
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed then ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70711
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Ra
,
||aarch64-none-linux-gnu
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
I'm not sure if this is target specific or not but on aarch64 and on armhf as
well the code is badly opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69143
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Similar to PR 28831, PR 23782?
Indeed, though looks more like a base case for PR28831 than PR23782 at first
glance.
Ramana
||2016-04-23
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Given.
struct E {
virtual ~E() { destroy(); }
virtual E *clone() = 0;
void destroy();
};
struct B: public E {
virtual ~B() {}
virtual B *clone() { return 0; }
virtual void bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70804
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
--- Comment #1 from Raman
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70825
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
S
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
There is an unnecessary store to the stack regardless of the architecture. I
suspect that's just because of the a combinati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70896
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69979
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53440
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Fri May 13 09:32:29 2016
New Revision: 236198
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236198&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/53440 - handle generic thunks better for TARGET_32BI
||2016-05-16
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed.
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to dhowe...@redhat.com from comment #0)
> In the kernel, we have various bits of code that boil down to:
>
> int cur = __atomic_load_n(&v->counter, __ATOMIC_RELAX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65068
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
> Fixed now, we now generates below code for a72/a57:
> .L4:
> ldr w0, [x1]
> add w0, w0, 1
> str w0, [x1], 4
> cmp x1, x2
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80236
--- Comment #20 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Dominik Schmidt from comment #18)
> Created attachment 41803 [details]
> Patch working for us
>
> Indeed, it seems to be a duplicate of the other bug.
That is good news - thank you for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19706
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-08-10
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48863
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81800
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
||2017-09-15
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
So, patches need to go to the gcc-patches list not be attached to bugzilla ...
If you want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82158
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
To answer the question open, no options have been added to "avoid" this
behaviour.
The code generated by the compiler is as per the ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82158
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Yvan Roux from comment #8)
> On 7 branch the following should fix the issue, but as I mentioned in
> comment #5, maybe TARGET_USE_MOVT is a better place to do the checking but
> this will
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-09-20
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Assuming this to be true but setting this at
||2017-09-20
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
I don't think I like the idea that Asan should turn off section anchors as a
fix. Se
||2017-09-20
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863
--- Comment #15 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to ard.biesheuvel from comment #13)
> The kernel does not currently use -mword-relocations. We are looking into it
> as an alternative to -fpic when building the kernel image as a PIE
> exec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80986
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to linzj from comment #5)
> Is the following patch okay? Or should I add the new bit to indicate not to
> remove an attribute?
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c
> index f8436b30b37..97
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> aarch64_function_arg_alignment
> has:
> for (tree field = TYPE_FIELDS (type); field; field = DECL_CHAIN (field))
> alignment = std::max (alignment,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #17 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 41237
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41237&action=edit
AArch64 prototype.
Patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #22 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> BTW, the wording e.g. i386 backend has is:
> inform (input_location,
> "the ABI of passing structure with complex flo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41237|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #25 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 41255
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41255&action=edit
AArch32 wip patch.
- There are some line > 80 characters, cosmetic issues in this patch .
- However t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41255|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #27 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #26)
> Created attachment 41257 [details]
> AArch32 wip patch.
>
> I think there's one line > 80 chars here but this is what I'm testing
> currently.
>
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-06-15
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed.
||2017-06-15
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed - though I think I've seen something like this in BZ before.
Searching doesn'
||2017-06-15
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #4)
> > Judging by your -mcpu option is this on a Cor
||2017-06-15
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed.
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
this is a deprecated ABI and we should really be removing this ...
||2017-06-16
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed - still an issue with gcc trunk and same issue exists on aarch64
( -fomit-frame
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46932
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-linux-gnueabi |arm-linux-gnueabi, aarch64*
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48315
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
john,
is this still an issue ?
I can't seem to reproduce this with any current release or trunk compilers ?
Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48789
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80236
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-06-16
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #15 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Well given all the comments, confirmed then ... :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78318
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-06-16
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Ok, how did you configure and did you follow instructions on
https://gcc.gnu.org/install and
||2017-06-16
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed then based on Vlad's comments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80986
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80236
--- Comment #15 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Dominik Schmidt from comment #14)
> Yes, will do on Sunday or next week.
Thanks.
||2017-06-16
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
What are your configure flags for this to fail ? Without this I cannot work out
what the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70184
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.3
--- Comment #11 from Ramana R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81142
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80236
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2017-0
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.9.4
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59904
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to christophe.lyon from comment #12)
> Created attachment 32864 [details]
> ELF binary file #3
>
> Compiled with -Os -g3 -pie -fpie -march=armv5t -mthumb
Is this still an issue ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67321
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71016
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #12 from Ramana R
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78449
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-01-23
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
A simple patch would be to check for __ARM_FEATURE_SAT in all those macros in
exch_n.c along
||amker at gcc dot gnu.org,
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Bin,
Are you likely to backport this fix to GCC-5 and GCC-6 - or is it going to be
Martin's fix ?
Ramana
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Dup of PR71607
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 71607 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71607
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||headch at gmail dot com
--- Comme
||2017-01-26
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79239
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Fri Jan 27 11:22:30 2017
New Revision: 244965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix PR target/79239 - unrecognized insn after pragma gcc pop
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
I've committed the fix for Richard. If there are more issues, lets take them up
as new bug reports.
||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org,
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||6.0, 7.0
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
As Jakub
||2017-03-23
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79898
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-03-23
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|FAIL: |[7 regression] FAIL:
|gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr77445-2.c |gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr77445-2.c
|scan-tree-dump thread1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79126
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
This appears to be a binutils issue - please take it up
there.
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
I don't think arm is a valid target for this given PR80155 was opened as a
consequence of fixing PR77498..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed I think by r245240
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed then ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> aarch64_function_arg_alignment
> has:
> for (tree field = TYPE_FIELDS (type); field; field = DECL_CHAIN (field))
> alignment = std::max (alignment,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78127
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
401 - 500 of 1217 matches
Mail list logo
