https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:66946624b96b762985de56444d726a0ebd4e0df5
commit r13-7167-g66946624b96b762985de56444d726a0ebd4e0df5
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:467a789b0c5e50676bb7e65f861b9d79e0c9fe4c
commit r12-9278-g467a789b0c5e50676bb7e65f861b9d79e0c9fe4c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To be exact, it is more complicated than that.
Some types with extra types are created using build_variant_type_copy and so
their TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT is without the attributes.
Example is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #9)
> So is it expected that the alignment of TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT(type) is 512?
Yes, it is. aligned attribute on non-aggregate types create a distinct type,
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The above commit fixed just the #c4 testcase, not the #c0 one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b4f7004a77b10bc403875f56c94f73ef86562d8
commit r13-6385-g9b4f7004a77b10bc403875f56c94f73ef86562d8
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 54544
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54544=edit
gcc13-pr108910-lto.patch
Untested fix for the lto side of this bug. No testcase included, as when
the target bug is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is another bug, in darktable actually such overaligned pointer isn't
passed, but it is cvise reduced into:
$ cat color_picker.c
void
bar (void)
{
float *__attribute__((aligned(64))) x;
}
$ cat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As I've tried to explain in the past, C/C++ considers float * and float
*__attribute__((aligned (64))) types to be compatible, similarly to int and int
__attribute__((aligned (64))), so in calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|13.0|12.3
Summary|[13
13 matches
Mail list logo
