: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
Sadly, I had been using the following code, presuming that I was telling gcc
that some data was aligned:
void copy_something(void *p, const void *s) {
struct some_struct __aligned__((aligned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36631
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com ---
ack, undoing, so sorry!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61782
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
Heh - I've been there as well and guess what - I invented
__attribute__((flatten)) because of this...
Note that flatten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61782
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
Note that if such function is called indirectly the compiler may
or may not inline it dependent on optimization level
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61782
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com ---
Hmm, I suppose I wasn't considering that interpretation of the language. Your
clarification helps though, and actually sounds pretty good: always_inline
forces inlining
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
The current behavior of __attribute__((always_inline)) is to not only inline in
-O0, but also to force inlining even when -finline-limit is exceeded. However,
the documentation states that it will only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59783
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
If you want precise call trace in the diagnostics, you need to use -g.
holy backtrace batman!
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
In C C11, __attribute__((error())) is a wonderful replacement for
_Static_assert() (e.g.,
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58005
Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
I am working on a Linux kernel patch set to add a feature comprable to glibc's
%m format specifier. However, glibc's extensions uses errno which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58512
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com ---
Ahh, thanks so much! Sorry I failed to find the related bugs. :(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57977
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com ---
Don't you mean the part which prohibits its creation?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57977
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com ---
Hmm, I guess it's actually the copy assignment operator. Either way, it makes
sense if the const union member was real, in this case, the copy assignment
for this member would
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
#include iostream
union a {
struct {
const char string[0];
} b;
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
std::cout size = sizeof(union
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55678
Bug #: 55678
Summary: _Static_assert escapes tick marks just to make me mad
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55678
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com 2012-12-13
21:12:24 UTC ---
This appears to happen in the function
c_parser_static_assert_declaration_no_semi (gcc/c/c-parser.c) when it calls
c_parser_peek_token (parser
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com 2012-11-15
21:56:02 UTC ---
First off, I apologize for my late response here.
(In reply to comment #5)
I'm going to respond a little backwards..
In fact, on ARM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bad optimization: sub |bad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com 2012-10-06
15:57:15 UTC ---
Please help me out here if I am missing something.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
Bug #: 54829
Summary: bad optimization: sub followed by cmp w/ zero (x86
ARM)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3507
Daniel Santos daniel.santos at pobox dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
101 - 121 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
