[Bug c/108345] New: Mismatch __attribute__((aligned(x))) between declaration and definition does not raise error/warning

2023-01-09 Thread dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108345 Bug ID: 108345 Summary: Mismatch __attribute__((aligned(x))) between declaration and definition does not raise error/warning Product: gcc Version: 10.3.1

[Bug libstdc++/68606] Reduce or disable the static emergency pool for C++ exceptions

2022-09-29 Thread dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68606 --- Comment #18 from Thibaut M. --- Jonathan, it looks like you have a good idea of what could be the patch, could you detail it please? :) Or are you referring to the one you already suggested here

[Bug libstdc++/68606] Reduce or disable the static emergency pool for C++ exceptions

2022-09-28 Thread dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68606 --- Comment #12 from Thibaut M. --- Thank you for the updated link! The problem with the original code is that it malloc unconditionally at least 2.4ko on the heap. This cannot be avoided when liking with libstdc++. This malloc is done very

[Bug libstdc++/68606] Reduce or disable the static emergency pool for C++ exceptions

2022-09-28 Thread dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68606 Thibaut M. changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com ---

[Bug libstdc++/64535] Emergency buffer for exception allocation too small

2022-09-27 Thread dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535 Thibaut M. changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com ---

[Bug target/101981] GCC10 produces bigger asm for simple switch than GCC7 - cortexM4 since r8-2701-g9dc3d6a96167b4c8

2021-09-09 Thread dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101981 --- Comment #7 from Thibaut M. --- There are other regressions (in term of code size) but not sure if this is the same. For example, this code: ```C #include void big_switch(int a) { switch (a) { default: printf("default a(%d)\n",

[Bug target/101981] GCC10 produces bigger asm for simple switch than GCC7 - cortexM4 since r8-2701-g9dc3d6a96167b4c8

2021-08-20 Thread dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101981 --- Comment #5 from Thibaut M. --- Thanks Martin! Do you think it can be patched?

[Bug target/101981] GCC10 produces bigger asm for simple switch than GCC7 - cortexM4

2021-08-20 Thread dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101981 --- Comment #2 from Thibaut M. --- I'm not sure to understand your statement. It looks like the switch lowering is wrong here because it takes now more time with the new GCC than the previous one. Is looks like a regression.

[Bug c/101995] New: regression built-in memset missed-optimization arm -Os

2021-08-20 Thread dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101995 Bug ID: 101995 Summary: regression built-in memset missed-optimization arm -Os Product: gcc Version: 10.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/101981] New: GCC10 produces bigger asm for simple switch than GCC7 - cortexM4

2021-08-19 Thread dumoulin.thibaut at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101981 Bug ID: 101981 Summary: GCC10 produces bigger asm for simple switch than GCC7 - cortexM4 Product: gcc Version: 10.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal