https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78255
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77388
--- Comment #5 from Andre Vieira ---
I see, thank you!
Oh and leaving out the const yields an error:
t.cpp:28:16: error: cannot bind packed field '((B*)this)->B::s->test_struct::c'
to 'short int&'
return A (s->c);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77388
--- Comment #3 from Andre Vieira ---
Thank you Richard!
I have a follow up question. Why is this only a problem when passing by
reference and not when passing a pointer?
So say:
#define PACKED __attribute__ ((packed))
#define TYPE_C short
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
As initially reported by Michal on
https://answers.launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded/+question/345145 gcc seems to be
showing some weird behavior when it comes to passing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #16 from Andre Vieira ---
Any progress on this one?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71237
--- Comment #3 from Andre Vieira ---
Created attachment 38576
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38576=edit
Regular generation at -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71237
--- Comment #2 from Andre Vieira ---
Created attachment 38575
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38575=edit
Assembly with the changed passes.def removing one pass of lim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71237
--- Comment #1 from Andre Vieira ---
So yes disabling LIM will make the tests "PASS". Though I couldnt find an
option to do this, I disabled the pass by changing passes.def, so that doesnt
sound like a good idea to test SCCP.
However, it might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #19 from Andre Vieira ---
> First of all please open a new bug for the FAILs. Second, the fix will
> be mostly adjusting the testcase expectations (eventually disabling LIM
> for example if we want to test SCCP abilities).
Opened a
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Ever since the reorganization of the passes moving lim before sink makes these
tests fail.
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-3.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #17 from Andre Vieira ---
Ah yes my bad, its not sccp doing it... got a bit confused there... It is
indeed sink that moves that sequence down. Sorry for the noise.
Question remains on how to clean this up though. Ideally you would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
--- Comment #15 from Andre Vieira ---
So the code change for sccp moves the following sequence out of the loop:
_2 = (sizetype) i_30;
_3 = _2 * 8;
_10 = _3 + 4;
_1 = + _10;
a_p = _1;
This is basically:
*a_p = [last_i].y;
I agree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71062
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Summary|[bugzilla]
-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi there,
I have encountered a new FAIL when testing newlib-nano for the arm-none-eabi
toolchain which I believe is caused by a change in code generation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70379
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
26_numerics/headers/cmath/c99_classification_macros_c++98.cc fails for newlib
on arm-none-eabi with the following errors (clipped the error messages
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70278
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 37999
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37999=edit
reduced e_hypot.c
Hello,
We are running into an ICE in lra on tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #5 from Andre Vieira ---
Ah yes I forgot to mention, this is reproduceable with:
$arm-none-eabi-gcc -mcpu=cortex-m0 -mthumb -Os -S pr45701-1.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #4 from Andre Vieira ---
Revision r226901 is linked to PR64164, so I added Alexandre Oliva to the watch
list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #3 from Andre Vieira ---
Created attachment 37923
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37923=edit
pre-patch reload dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #2 from Andre Vieira ---
Created attachment 37922
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37922=edit
pre-patch ira dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #1 from Andre Vieira ---
Created attachment 37921
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37921=edit
current reload dump
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 37920
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37920=edit
current ira d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70063
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69979
--- Comment #1 from Andre Vieira ---
I believe expand_function_start is responsible for this code. When it calls
assign_parms it will generate RTL to copy the incoming struct parameter onto
the stack.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
As reported by Cory in https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded/+bug/1549542
It seems the naked function
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This behavior was caught when debugging the following fail for -mcpu=cortex-m0:
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/vshuf-v2di.C -O2 execution test
After some debugging
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69752
--- Comment #1 from Andre Vieira ---
Tried it with GCC 5.2.1 and 6.0, all show the same behavior. For 4.9 I couldnt
reproduce the issue.
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I am getting an execution failure for:
gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/builtin-apply-4.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69227
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68385
--- Comment #8 from Andre Vieira ---
It did fix it for me, sorry for the late reply.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69227
--- Comment #2 from Andre Vieira ---
I have decided to email the newlib mailinglist to figure out which function
classes we should and should not support for 'arm-none-eabi'.
See https://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2016/msg9.html
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: andre.simoesdiasvieira at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Commit r232191 causes the following fail on arm-none-eabi target:
FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-integral-1.c -O1 (test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68232
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68385
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67948
Andre Vieira changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.
39 matches
Mail list logo
