http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55412
Bug #: 55412
Summary: pr47276.c fails with -fpic option.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55412
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com 2012-11-21
07:46:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 28751
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28751
Simple reproducer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55412
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com 2012-11-21
07:48:23 UTC ---
I tried to narrow down the problem and changed the test a little bit.
(The relative order of declarations remains the same; Just grouped
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55816
Bug #: 55816
Summary: Options from command line are added to target arch
attribute eventhough they are in contradiction with
that target
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58525
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
thanks. I have sent it to gcc-paches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00402.html
: regression
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
Android image build with trunk gcc failed after the following commit:
Author: hubicka hubicka@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
Date: Thu Oct 3 17:25:42 2013 +
* i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59086
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
I understand the technical reasons of the complexity of the correct and
efficient register allocation here, but what I don't understand is this:
$ gcc_4.7 test.c -c -fPIC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59086
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Do we have any documentation that states how many registers can be used in
inline assembler for a particular arch and optset? almost all is not good
enough for that.
If the user
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Patch from comment #7 didn't cure Android build as well..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #11)
(In reply to Alexander Ivchenko from comment #10)
Patch from comment #7 didn't cure Android build as well..
Can you try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53435
Bug #: 53435
Summary: (ix86_expand_vec_perm) and (ix86_expand_vec_perm) do
not pass arguments to avx2_permvar8s[f,i] correctly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53435
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com 2012-05-21
11:46:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 27460
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27460
proposed patch for fixing
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
CC: aivchenk at gmail dot com
The following code crashes android ndk gcc-4.6 on 64 bit windows with segfault
on at least -O1:
int c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57385
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Following fix could solve the problem:
diff --git a/gcc-4.6/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c b/gcc-4.6/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
index eb88969..704a86c 100644
--- a/gcc-4.6/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57385
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Testing is in progress, will send to gcc-patches rigth after that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57385
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64 linux, sent to gcc-patches.
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/246036/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57385
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
btw it indeed gives a segfault for 4.7 on linux_64 if we change the index from
-1 to some -1.
g++ .../src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr57385.c -O1 -S -o pr57385.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57385
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Kirill Yukhin kirill.yuk...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok for trunk and 4.8 after 4.8.1 is out.
Checked in to trunk:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs
Priority: P3
Component: regression
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
extern C {
float sqrtf(float);
}
class V
{
public:
double length2 () const {}
double length () const
{
return sqrtf(length2());
}
V
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58165
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
I firstly did something like that:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-call-cdce.c b/gcc/tree-call-cdce.c
index 9b6186e..5862ebf 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-call-cdce.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-call-cdce.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58165
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Well, that wouldn't be sufficient, you'd need to also remove the EH edges
from the other bb. But not splitting the block means you don't have to
bother with that.
Well
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
Testcase:
ABC.h-
class A
{
protected:
A();
virtual ~A();
};
class B : virtual public A
{
public:
B();
virtual ~B();
};
class C
{
private:
class C2 : public B
{
public
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58242
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Should be fixed now by r202274
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
When I compile the following code (modified version of
g++.dg/cpp0x/bad_array_new1.C without try/catch):
// { dg-options -std=c++11 }
// { dg-do run }
#include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58525
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30891
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30891action=edit
Proposed untested fix
Proposed untested fix is attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Jan, by any chance, do you have any progress on that? May be we should revert
the patch until the proper fix?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Ping.. any updates? We cannot build Android since the beginning of Jul, and,
hence, cannot evaluate 5.0 candidate for it. I find it very unfortunate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
The patch fixed the issue for me, thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58525
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Volker Reichelt from comment #5)
Alexander, Jason, can this bug be closed as fixed?
Yes, it is fixed now in trunk.
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
Android build is currently broken due to this bug:
gcc expr_ice.c -c -O2 -fPIC -m32 -march=i686
expr_ice.c:9:13: internal compiler error: in convert_move, at expr.c:333
__m128i bar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59789
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
lets just say that my code is valid and I forgot to add -msse2 :).
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
The code is invalid since -march=i686 doesn't support SSE.
The older
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59789
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
(In reply to Alexander Ivchenko from comment #2)
lets just say that my code is valid and I forgot to add -msse2 :).
Does GCC ICE
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
Build of x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with --disable-libstdc__-v3 is broken now:
$ ../gcc_mainline/configure --disable-bootstrap --disable-libstdc__
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60634
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
What is it useful for to configure gcc that way?
The stdc++ library is built and shipped separately from the compiler.
And, both
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
../gcc_mainline/configure --target=i686-linux-android --disable-bootstrap
--enable-languages=c,c++
--with-sysroot=[..]ndk/android-ndk-r9d/platforms/android-19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60644
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
That (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
Well pthread_yield should be replaced with the POSIX version: sched_yield()
instead.
Right.. the attached patch cured
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60644
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32443
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32443action=edit
Renaming ANDROID to __ANDROID__
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60644
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
The fix in gcc-patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01428.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60644
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Confirm fixing
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
g++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/gomp/pr60823-2.c -O1 -fopenmp-simd -fPIC -m32
gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/gomp/pr60823-2.c: In function ‘int main()’:
gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/gomp
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
cat test.c
void foo(short a[], short m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
You need to specify -mssse3 (not -msse3). Warning about array bounds is not
correct, because gcc does not know how this function is being called.
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
configured with: /users/aivchenk/toolchain_3/gcc/gcc-5.0/libstdc++-v3/configure
- --enable-multilib --with-cross-host
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
When compiling with -Wl,-as-needed libmpx.so and libmpxwrappers.so are not
linked:
>gcc -fcheck-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77267
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
Thanks, Matthias, that's a valid point about changing linker on a runtime. In
my defense, I see that right now MPX does not work with '-fuse-ld=bfd' anyways:
>gcc test.c -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77383
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
I debugged it and I suspect that the problem is in tree_function_versioning
(which is used for making instrumented clones of all functions in MPX).
Deep inside the logic of tree_function_versioning we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77267
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
Looks like exactly the same discussion happened when '-z bndplt' option was
discussed. Here is the reference: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/456557/ .
It's a long one, but seems that the consensus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77267
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
Matthias, could you apply the fix for that bug
(https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240057=gcc=rev) to the Ubuntu
version of gcc?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77267
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 77267, which changed state.
Bug 77267 Summary: MPX does not work in a presence of "-Wl,-as-needed" option
(Ubuntu default)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77267
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68270
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65705
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63994
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67520
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk at gmail dot com
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
> cat ../struct_asm.c
/* { dg-do compile } */
typedef int v8 __attribute__ ((vector_size(8)));
struct U {
v8 a;
v8 b;
};
int
foo (int i)
{
register struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79990
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
I proposed a fix for this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01222.html
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
> cat struct_hard_reg.c
#include
typedef int v8 __attribute__((vector_size(8)));
struct S1 {
v8 s1f;
};
struct S2 {
struct S1 s2f1;
v8 s2f2;
};
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79788
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79765
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80270
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
Another test that fails similarly, but already at "-O0":
typedef int v8 __attribute__ ((vector_size (8)));
struct S2
{
v8 s2f2;
int* f3;
};
int foo (int i)
{
register struct S2 b asm ("xmm0");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79990
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
The problem here is that chkp creates bounds for register variable:
vsdump.c.025t.chkp:
Building bounds for address of decl u
Made bounds: __bound_tmp.0_4 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79634
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
The problem here is that when CHKP is instrumenting call statement "i();" it
doesn't know that it's a builtin call. When optimizations come into play,
namely ccp pass, it becomes known that the call is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79787
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79634
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #4)
> We hit function pointer propagation issues before and chkp_redirect_edge
> with corresponding code in redirect_call_stmt_to_callee appeared to handle
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79929
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk at gmail dot com
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: aivchenk at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
in gcc __atomic_is_lock_free(sizeof(unsigned long long), ) returns true (in
clang it is left as a call)
int main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65118
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
I'm afraid I don't have an ability to reproduce it anymore. As nobody
complained over the years, I think it makes sense to close it
70 matches
Mail list logo
