[Bug c/108875] New: Possible wrong error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108875 Bug ID: 108875 Summary: Possible wrong error message Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug ipa/108740] two identical functions but the code generated differs due to volatile argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108740 --- Comment #5 from Piotr --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > (In reply to Piotr from comment #3) > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > > > Hmm, ICF + re-inlining makes it ignore some of the pointless volatile > > >

[Bug ipa/108740] two identical functions but the code generated differs. Why?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108740 --- Comment #3 from Piotr --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > Hmm, ICF + re-inlining makes it ignore some of the pointless volatile dance? why the code is different abstracting form the sense of the assignment?

[Bug c/108740] two identical functions but the code generated differs. Why?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108740 --- Comment #1 from Piotr --- -fno-ipa-icf makes it identical.

[Bug c/108740] New: two identical functions but the code generated differs. Why?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108740 Bug ID: 108740 Summary: two identical functions but the code generated differs. Why? Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/106582] Wrong code generation resulting in HardFault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106582 Piotr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/106582] Wrong code generation resulting in HardFault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106582 --- Comment #5 from Piotr --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > > > 080157fe: movsr3, #0 > 08015800: ldr.w r2, [r9, #20] > 08015804: str r2, [r3, #12] > > This is doing a store at the address 12 which is invalid

[Bug c/106582] Wrong code generation resulting in HardFault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106582 --- Comment #3 from Piotr --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Can you provide preprocessed source of the file where the crash occurs and > the compiler commandline? Can you also try GCC 10.4 (or a compiler built > from > the GCC

[Bug c/106582] Wrong code generation resulting in HardFault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106582 --- Comment #2 from Piotr --- Created attachment 53434 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53434=edit Preprocessed file

[Bug c/106582] New: Wrong code generation resulting in HardFault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106582 Bug ID: 106582 Summary: Wrong code generation resulting in HardFault Product: gcc Version: 10.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/102135] New: (ARM Cortex-M3 and newer) changing operation order may reduce number of instructions needed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102135 Bug ID: 102135 Summary: (ARM Cortex-M3 and newer) changing operation order may reduce number of instructions needed Product: gcc Version: 10.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/102125] (ARM Cortex-M3 and newer) missed optimization. memcpy not needed operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102125 --- Comment #4 from Piotr --- mov r3, r0 ldr r0, [r0] @ unaligned ldr r1, [r3, #4] @ unaligned bx lr can be optimized even more ldr r1, [r0, #4] @ unaligned ldr

[Bug c/102125] (ARM Cortex-M3 and newer) missed optimization. memcpy not needed operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102125 --- Comment #1 from Piotr --- IMO it is quite important as `memcpy` type punning is considered as the safest

[Bug c/102125] New: (ARM Cortex-M3 and newer) missed optimization. memcpy not needed operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102125 Bug ID: 102125 Summary: (ARM Cortex-M3 and newer) missed optimization. memcpy not needed operations Product: gcc Version: 10.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: