https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #27 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #26)
> I can reproduce the problem with this new reduced testcase. I don't have
> knowledge of all of the details how the gcc implementation of LTO works, but
> my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #26 from Jim Wilson ---
I can reproduce the problem with this new reduced testcase. I don't have
knowledge of all of the details how the gcc implementation of LTO works, but my
understanding goes something like this.
The testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #25 from Renlin Li ---
Created attachment 40474
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40474=edit
reduced objdump assembler file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #24 from Renlin Li ---
Created attachment 40473
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40473=edit
memset.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #23 from Renlin Li ---
Created attachment 40472
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40472=edit
test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||renlin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #21 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> Unless you do something very nasty in the spec files (in which case you
> should just avoid those tests), the user specified objects should always
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unless you do something very nasty in the spec files (in which case you should
just avoid those tests), the user specified objects should always appear before
stuff coming from -lc unless -lc is specified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #18 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #17)
> I still haven't been able to reproduce this, but I do see a problem.
>
> In the original bug report, the only difference is that the code uses x4 in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #17 from Jim Wilson ---
I still haven't been able to reproduce this, but I do see a problem.
In the original bug report, the only difference is that the code uses x4 in the
first part of the diff, and x24 in the second part of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #16 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> I should note I run these tests using the installed compiler rather than
> directly from the build directory
Hi Andrew,
Could you please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should note I run these tests using the installed compiler rather than
directly from the build directory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #14 from Jim Wilson ---
I debugged one of my gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins failures, and found a bug
in the gdb aarch64 simulator with the FP stur instruction support. I submitted
a patch to gdb-patches. With that fix, all of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-11/msg03338.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |aarch64-elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #11 from Jim Wilson ---
FYI I'm using the gdb simulator to run the testcases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #10 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On a related note, Jim told me he is seeing following failures
on aarch64-none-elf before and after updating the tree.
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memset-chk.c execution, -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #9 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > > The cmp %rax, %rax is just a missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Prathamesh, I will check on it and get back to you. Thanks for looking at
this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > > The cmp %rax, %rax is just a missed optimization, because we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > The cmp %rax, %rax is just a missed optimization, because we manage to
> > optimize it only so late that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> The cmp %rax, %rax is just a missed optimization, because we manage to
> optimize it only so late that nothing cleans it up afterwards. We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 40183
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40183=edit
revert part of r242745 for strcat, strcat_chk, strncat, strncat_chk
Hi,
Unfortunately I haven't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for the breakage, I am looking into the issue.
Regards,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Target|
27 matches
Mail list logo
