https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84719
--- Comment #11 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
Yes it's not the init loop the problem. Just to make sure, with the following
code :
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84719
--- Comment #8 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
Just to make sure I commented out bit masking :
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
const uint64_t size = 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84719
--- Comment #6 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
If you compile the following code (-O3 being the only flag used) :
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
const uint64_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84719
--- Comment #5 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
Which gcc and which clang ?
Because on my platform, in the above code, if you isolate 3 bytes at a time and
5 bytes at a time it is way slower than clang (by doing manual unrolling).
Or maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84719
--- Comment #2 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Does -mcpu=native improve it?
> Also is GCC calling memcpy instead of doing an inline version?
No -march=native does not make any diff
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gpnuma at centaurean dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I post this bug report as an echo to my post here :
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49098453
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #2 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
I understand you're short of time but this problem is very difficult to
reproduce !!
I did try to compile and link with -fsanitize=undefined this morning, now
here's the interesting part
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #5 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
Ok I did just try -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations and the issue is still there.
If I add the printf(something); at the top of the function, everything works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #9 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
What I mean is the structs I was using the pointer casts allocations with are
instanciated by the program itself, so there could be a way to instanciate them
with the required alignment I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #4 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
Sorry I meant gcc 4.9.2 / -O3 of course, 4.8 works fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #8 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
Thanks Markus I didn't think these alignment issues were actually the problem,
it goes a long way.
By doing memmoves instead of pointer cast allocations I got rid of the
segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
--- Comment #11 from gpnuma at centaurean dot com ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #10)
(In reply to gpnuma from comment #8)
Thanks Markus I didn't think these alignment issues were actually the
problem, it goes a long way
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gpnuma at centaurean dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hello,
First I'd like to point out that the code producing this error compiles and
runs fine in gcc 4.8.4-1 for Linux and OS/X and Clang 3.5, 3.6 (Linux) and 6.1
(OS/X
13 matches
Mail list logo
