[Bug target/91102] [9/10 Regression] aarch64 ICE on Linux kernel with -Os starting with r270266

2019-07-08 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91102 --- Comment #6 from Stefan Kneifel --- It seems to fix the bug - at least the original problem (ICE during compiling Linux kernel for aarch64 with -Os) is solved by this patch.

[Bug ipa/106696] New: Fallthrough between functions without proper return statement when optimizing

2022-08-20 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ipa Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Host: x86_64 Target: x86_64, aarch64

[Bug c++/106696] Fallthrough between functions without proper return statement when optimizing

2022-08-20 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106696 Stefan Kneifel changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Stefan Kneif

[Bug target/103661] New: __builtin_cpu_supports returns a negative integer for avx512vbmi2

2021-12-11 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch Target Milestone: --- __builtin_cpu_supports is supposed to return a positive integer if the run-time CPU supports the requested feature and zero

[Bug target/103661] __builtin_cpu_supports returns a negative integer for avx512vbmi2

2021-12-11 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103661 --- Comment #3 from Stefan Kneifel --- Created attachment 51975 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51975&action=edit First try of a patch, making it unsigned (and correcting the resolver generator)

[Bug target/103661] __builtin_cpu_supports returns a negative integer for avx512vbmi2

2021-12-12 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103661 --- Comment #4 from Stefan Kneifel --- Created attachment 51978 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51978&action=edit Testcase Without the proposed patch, it compiles to: : 0: 50

[Bug c/101726] New: target_clone resolver does not generate PIC despite -fPIC

2021-08-02 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 51243 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51243&action=edit Testcase: compile with -Os -fPI

[Bug target/101726] target_clone resolver does not generate PIC despite -fPIC

2021-08-03 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101726 --- Comment #2 from Stefan Kneifel --- OK, so declaring the default function as local might make gcc assume that the function body is available in the same translation unit, thus rendering the relocation locally resolvable. Thus said, I tried

[Bug target/101726] target_clone resolver does not generate PIC despite -fPIC

2021-08-11 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101726 --- Comment #4 from Stefan Kneifel --- Yes, but a programmer might choose to implement target clones for a shared library using another language, e.g. hand-optimized assembler code (this was the actual problem I had). Forbidding target_clone de

[Bug ipa/101726] target_clone resolver does not generate PIC despite -fPIC

2021-08-13 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101726 --- Comment #7 from Stefan Kneifel --- OK works for me, thank you!

[Bug target/120011] [15/16 Regression] Impossible asm constraints in 32 bit libgcc when compiling with -march=x86-64-v4 -Os since r15-9176-g564e4e08190229

2025-04-30 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120011 --- Comment #13 from Stefan Kneifel --- Correct, -R'ing this patch against 15.1.1 sources reverses the regression.

[Bug libgcc/120011] New: [15 Regression] Impossible asm constraints in 32 bit libgcc when compiling with -march=x86-64-v4

2025-04-29 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgcc Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch Target Milestone: --- Regression 15.1.1 against 15.0: When compiling gcc itself using -march=x86-64-v4, it stops

[Bug target/120011] [15 Regression] Impossible asm constraints in 32 bit libgcc when compiling with -march=x86-64-v4

2025-04-29 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120011 --- Comment #2 from Stefan Kneifel --- Created attachment 61243 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61243&action=edit creduced addtf3.c from libgcc

[Bug target/120011] [15/16 Regression] Impossible asm constraints in 32 bit libgcc when compiling with -march=x86-64-v4 -Os

2025-04-29 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120011 --- Comment #8 from Stefan Kneifel --- It was the version shipped with Fedora 42 Release: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/42/Everything/source/tree/Packages/g/gcc-15.0.1-0.11.fc42.src.rpm Regards, Stefan

[Bug target/120011] [15 Regression] Impossible asm constraints in 32 bit libgcc when compiling with -march=x86-64-v4

2025-04-29 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120011 --- Comment #4 from Stefan Kneifel --- Oh I see that the error occurs only if one of the size optimization options (-Os,-Oz) is active: [64 bit environment] gcc -Os -pipe -c addtf3.c works gcc -Os -pipe -c addtf3.c -mar

[Bug target/120011] [15/16 Regression] Impossible asm constraints in 32 bit libgcc when compiling with -march=x86-64-v4 -Os

2025-04-29 Thread stefan.kneifel at bluewin dot ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120011 --- Comment #9 from Stefan Kneifel --- Hongtao Liu's patch mentioned in Comment 1 does NOT retract the regression.