https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 28 14:36:13 2014
New Revision: 209863
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209863&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-28 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/60092
* builtins.def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
> As the standard doesn't specify that the value is undefined upon error and it
> only specifies its contents upon successfull completion it imp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
As the standard doesn't specify that the value is undefined upon error and it
only specifies its contents upon successfull completion it implicitely says
that it retains the previous value on error.
I'd say
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #21)
>> The new test FAILs on Solaris 11 (both SPARC and x86), which, unlike Solaris
>> 10,
>> has posix_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #21)
> The new test FAILs on Solaris 11 (both SPARC and x86), which, unlike Solaris
> 10,
> has posix_memalign in libc:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr60092.c -O0 executio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 12 13:36:08 2014
New Revision: 207720
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207720&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-12 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/60092
* gimple-low.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #18)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > We could "lower"
> > posix_memalign (&ptr, align, size);
> > to
> > posix_memalign (&ptr, align, size);
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 8 09:09:01 2014
New Revision: 207628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/60092
* tree-ssa-ccp.c (surely_varying_stmt_p): Don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 7 13:41:10 2014
New Revision: 207598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-07 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/60092
* gimple-low.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 7 09:33:23 2014
New Revision: 207595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-07 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/60092
* builtin-type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #11)
> > If a function is not allowed to change errno this must be explicitly
> > documented.
>
> That means
>
> Inde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #11)
> If a function is not allowed to change errno this must be explicitly
> documented.
That means
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab ---
If a function is not allowed to change errno this must be explicitly
documented.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
> Ok, my manpage says
>
> RETURN VALUE
>aligned_alloc(), memalign(), valloc(), and pvalloc() return a
> pointer
>to the allocated memory, or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> According to the specification this is wrong. Note that changing errno
> is hindering optimization. For example
>
> int foo (int *p)
> {
> *p = 1;
> malloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> > Hack: when the return value of posix_memalign is ignored, if the platform
> > supports it, replace with a call to al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> Hack: when the return value of posix_memalign is ignored, if the platform
> supports it, replace with a call to aligned_alloc (C11), which has an easier
> interface.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 32066
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32066&action=edit
part #2, C11 aligned_alloc
It was noted that aligned_alloc is standard enough to be supported (and with
nicer in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
Hack: when the return value of posix_memalign is ignored, if the platform
supports it, replace with a call to aligned_alloc (C11), which has an easier
interface.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 32064
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32064&action=edit
part #1, aliasing
I've implemented the aliasing parts (and the builtin obviously).
It's true that doing
posi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
28 matches
Mail list logo
