https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #11 from Jani Nikula ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> May I close this as worksforme?
If the conclusion is that the magnitude of the code size bloat demonstrated in
https://godbolt.org/g/hgS817 is expected, then go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
May I close this as worksforme?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #9 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Sent a kernel patch to avoid the problem:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg123586.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #8 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Looking at the kernel code again, I came up with an alternative that avoids the
large stack size and produces good executable code in all configurations I
found with the file that showed up a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
"String literals, and compound literals with const-qualified types, need
not designate distinct objects.". (This is different from named
variables, which can't be merged without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sometimes it might be beneficial to use array in .rodata section rather than
automatic compound literal, i.e. try
const int j = ({ const int myarr[] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5}; myarr[i]; });
The question
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #5 from Jani Nikula ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> How common is such situation and why do you use volatile keyword in
> combination with a constant index?
I didn't write the sample, I think the goal of 'volatile'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jani Nikula from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > Well, just adding the param and -fsanitize-address-use-after-scope does not
> > enable any sanitization. One has to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #3 from Jani Nikula ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Well, just adding the param and -fsanitize-address-use-after-scope does not
> enable any sanitization. One has to add -fsanitize=address to trigger real
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I see, with -O2 and your options:
main:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movl$1, -4(%rsp)
movslq -4(%rsp), %rax
movl._1(,%rax,4), %eax
ret
which is the same as
12 matches
Mail list logo
