https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e60ddeb8220ed388819bb3f14e8caa9309fd3c2
commit r11-5927-g3e60ddeb8220ed388819bb3f14e8caa9309fd3c2
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
>
> --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 49727
> -->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 49727
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49727=edit
gcc11-pr98190.patch
So, I have bootstrapped/regtested this patch last night on x86_64, i686,
aarch64, armv7hl,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #14 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> > If we can't assert, I guess the rule is that we need to extend
> > whenever we're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> If we can't assert, I guess the rule is that we need to extend
> whenever we're storing to the MSB of the inner register. We can
> do that either by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
>
> --- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Perhaps some of those checks on the other side are redundant and could be
> turned e.g. into gcc_checking_assert of gcc_assert, I bet if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps some of those checks on the other side are redundant and could be
turned e.g. into gcc_checking_assert of gcc_assert, I bet if the MEM_REF
doesn't overwrite all bits, but only some subset of them,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, do we need to special case MEM_REF stores that store all bits (i.e. bitpos
0 bitsize equal to mode bitsize) into non-MEM variables which are promoted?
Something like:
--- gcc/expr.c.jj 2020-12-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|GCC 11.0 miscompiles code |[11 Regression] GCC11
13 matches
Mail list logo