[Bug middle-end/92824] Wrong optimization: representation of long doubles not copied even with memcpy

2020-03-09 Thread ch3root at openwall dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92824 Alexander Cherepanov changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/92824] Wrong optimization: representation of long doubles not copied even with memcpy

2020-01-30 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92824 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/92824] Wrong optimization: representation of long doubles not copied even with memcpy

2019-12-17 Thread ch3root at openwall dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92824 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Cherepanov --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > shows we're constant folding this to > > __builtin_printf ("%lf\n", > 3.36210314311209350626267781732175260259807934484647124011e-4932);

[Bug middle-end/92824] Wrong optimization: representation of long doubles not copied even with memcpy

2019-12-06 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92824 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- So int main() { long double x; // make x pseudo-denormal x = 0; unsigned char *px = (unsigned char *) px[7] = 0x80; // set padding px[10] = 0x80; px[11] = 0x80; px[12] = 0x80; px[13]

[Bug middle-end/92824] Wrong optimization: representation of long doubles not copied even with memcpy

2019-12-05 Thread sch...@linux-m68k.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92824 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab --- On m68k the padding is internal, and actually part of the representation.

[Bug middle-end/92824] Wrong optimization: representation of long doubles not copied even with memcpy

2019-12-05 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92824 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-linux-gnu, m68k --- Comment #1