https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104689
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107620
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107326
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92999
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105929
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53135
--- Comment #20 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #19)
> I think it's just workaround that got installed in 2012, not a real fix.
> Of course, 10 years later one could ask if the workaround has become the
>
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Derived from PR92999
struct phalf {
__fp16 first;
__fp16 second;
};
struct phalf phalf_copy(struct phalf* src) __attribute__((noinline));
struct phalf
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||13.0
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-05
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
confirmed on trunk.
I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100523
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
|WAITING
Last reconfirmed||2022-11-04
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
I'd suggest moving this to Waiting given the time without a response and the
correct links
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53135
--- Comment #18 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Since the fix got installed in 2012 this really should have been fixed from
4.8.0 onwards.
Should we really keep this still open or can we close this out ?
Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97726
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96372
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89400
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90308
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed May 1 15:27:40 2019
New Revision: 270770
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270770=gcc=rev
Log:
[Patch AArch64] Add __ARM_FEATURE_ATOMICS
This keeps coming up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Apr 30 14:57:50 2019
New Revision: 270702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270702=gcc=rev
Log:
[Patch AArch64] Add __ARM_FEATURE_ATOMICS
This keeps coming up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Apr 30 12:02:30 2019
New Revision: 270689
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270689=gcc=rev
Log:
[Patch AArch64] Add __ARM_FEATURE_ATOMICS
This keeps coming up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Apr 30 11:22:11 2019
New Revision: 270686
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270686=gcc=rev
Log:
[Patch AArch64] Add __ARM_FEATURE_ATOMICS
This keeps coming up repeatedly
||2019-04-30
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90075
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
---
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
I'll take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #45 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #42)
> Thanks for the explanation.
> In that case, I think it would be better to just add
> __attribute__((target("general-regs-only")))
> to the
> #ifdef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45552|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #30 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> Ramana, any progress on this?
I'm still trying to get the various spec files and the t-multilib bits sorted
and half-term has intervened here in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #27 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #25)
> you might consider adding something like that to your patch:
>
> Index: elf.h
> ===
>
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #21 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #15)
> > > Testing this and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> We require GNU make, so one can use something like:
> unwind-arm.o unwind-c.o libunwind.o pr-support.o: CFLAGS += -mfpu=none
> or similar in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45547|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 45547
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45547=edit
untested prototype patch.
Not sure if this is complete yet but it gives a framework to dig further.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84923
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88734
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-01-14
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
||2018-12-14
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
> vshr.u16q9, q9, #8
> vshr.u16q8, q8, #8
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88259
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53440
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43721
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87867
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Fri Nov 9 12:50:51 2018
New Revision: 265965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265965=gcc=rev
Log:
[PATCH, arm] Backport -- Fix ICE during thunk generation with -mlong-calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87330
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86815
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87565
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2018-10-10
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Ramana
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
I don't think anyone is going to go fetch an odroid for this - it sounds like a
problem in your environment as many folks are building / able
||2018-10-10
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=86815
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> Unfortunately I can't reproduce that with cross compiler.
Me neither today.
Gianfranco , could you check if you are running out of memory on the machine
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Gianfranco from comment #6)
> Created attachment 44485 [details]
> another failing output
>
> I'm attaching another file suffering from the same issue (mostly every cp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > > Can't reproduce with GCC 7.3.0 on x86_64:
> > >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87563
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-none-elf
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87563
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Somewhere between r261702 and r262881 the following testcase ICEs with -Ofast
-O3 -march=armv8-a+sve.
int a, b, c, *e;
int d[2];
void f() {
while (c) {
d[0] = 4;
d[1
,
||arm-none-eabi
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2018-07-25
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||7.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86640
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
char fn1() {
long long b[5];
for (int a = 0; a < 5; a++)
b[a] = ~0ULL;
return b[3];
}
$> arm-none-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -c -O3 -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=hard
-march
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86555
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Khem Raj from comment #2)
> we can avoid the problem by altering the structure, thats not an issue, but
> do you think compiler is right here by assuming to generate LDRD on a 4byte
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.3.1
--- Comment #14 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.1, 8.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #11)
> *** Bug 86516 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Paul Gotch from comment #10)
> I'm afraid the changes made to libstdc++ have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85804
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #2)
> Patch being discussed here.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-05/msg01026.html
Bin are you still working on this ?
||2018-07-11
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
I'm unable to build the pre-processed file with 4.9 - is it possible for you
to attach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Sameera,
If you are working on this , can you please assign this to yourself ?
Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
||2018-07-11
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed.
||2018-07-11
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ramana at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
This patch
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|FIXED |---
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Seems to need a fix for gcc 6 branch based on PR86166
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to sameerad from comment #2)
> Ramana, it is another peephole that I am trying to explore for falkor. It
> combines loads/stores of shorter types (QI/HI/SI) into single load/store of
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #25 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #24)
> Author: kugan
> Date: Sat Jun 16 21:34:29 2018
> New Revision: 261681
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261681=gcc=rev
> Log:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85804
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84342
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12)
> I'm not familiar enough with the ccfsm bits to know if there's something we
> ought to be doing generically to improve CC handling further. I think
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84342
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
||2018-05-11
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |8.2
Summary|ARM -mbe8 behaviour doesn't |[8 regression] ARM -mbe8
|match documentation |behaviour doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84923
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> For x86_64 if I append
>
> const int *dat[] = { , };
>
> the testcase links fine irrespective of where I place the
>
> .weakref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #11)
> FYI: This caused a regression on aarch64.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84923
I have marked 84923 as an 8 regression as it wasn't
,
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Adding Eric to the CC list as someone who could comment on this ?
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Fixed I'm assuming ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85261
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84877
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863
--- Comment #21 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Mar 27 14:06:20 2018
New Revision: 258886
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258886=gcc=rev
Log:
[Patch ARM] Fix PR target/81863
This has been in my patch stack for quite
||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Isn't this something you said you could see from 6.x ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84521
--- Comment #15 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Feb 26 09:25:21 2018
New Revision: 257984
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257984=gcc=rev
Log:
[Patch AArch64] Turn on frame pointer / partial fix for PR84521
This
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2018-02-23
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
We are about to turn fno-omit-frame-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84521
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Is the requirement just for functions that contain setjmp? If so, the
> backend could just force frame pointers in cfun->calls_setjmp functions.
I
||2018-02-20
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #0)
> Bug 83462 reports (among others) a fail
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-12-12
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Confirmed then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82248
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Dec 5 16:32:55 2017
New Revision: 255428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255428=gcc=rev
Log:
[Patch ARM] Fix probe_stack constraint.
The probe_stack pattern uses r0 as
1 - 100 of 1212 matches
Mail list logo
