https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86693
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4)
> Change testcase a little bit, gcc now can generate lock btc
>
>
> void func1();
>
> void func(unsigned long *counter)
> {
> if (__atomic_fetch_xor(counter, 1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103785
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Good __tunables_init code:
.L35:
movq$-88, %rax
leaqtunable_list(%rip), %rbx
movq%r8, %r12
subq%rbx, %rax
movq%rax, %r15
Bad __tunables_init
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
elf/dl-tunables.c is miscompiled by -fpie.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Good:
There are 16 section headers, starting at offset 0x21d8:
Section Headers:
[Nr] Name TypeAddress OffSize ES Flg
Lk Inf Al
[ 0] NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
Bug ID: 103762
Summary: [12 Regression] glibc master branch is miscompiled by
r12-897
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
LRA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 52028
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52028=edit
A testcase
There are dl-tunables.i good.s bad.s. Compiler options are
-std=gnu11 -fgnu89-inline -O2 -g -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103762
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #9)
> glibc cannot easily work around such unexpected relocations for static or
> hidden variables. Static PIE currently requires PI_STATIC_AND_HIDDEN, and
> with the GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103820
Bug ID: 103820
Summary: [12 Regression] i686 failed to bootstrap with ada by
r12-6077
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103820
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103820
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #3)
> Thanks for investigating this HJ (I'm having difficulty configuring my
You can bootstrap 32bit GCC on Linux/x86-64 if 32-bit libraries are
available.
> system to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103820
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
index 284b9507466..9d6786c5c2e 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.md
@@ -8588,7 +8588,8 @@ (define_peephole2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103262
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
merge_call_side_effects has
modref_parm_map chain_map;
...
for (auto kill : saved_kills)
{
if (kill.parm_index >= (int)parm_map.length ())
continue;
modref_parm_map
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103262
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
May also need -mtune=generic -march=pentium4 with bootstrap. Valgrind reports:
==2421026== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==2421026== Copyright (C) 2002-2017, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103262
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103262
Bug ID: 103262
Summary: [12 Regression] Random FAIL:
gcc.c-torture/execute/20061220-1.c after r12-5242
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103364
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Does it work on x86-64?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103275
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #10)
> I'm working on a patch which adds a new memory constraint "Bk" which will
> exclude TLS UNSPECs for mask register alternative.
>
> The UNSPEC i'm excluding is like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103307
Bug ID: 103307
Summary: Unused "%!" before return
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103309
Bug ID: 103309
Summary: [12 Regression] Random gcc/system.h:784:34: error:
section type conflict
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103309
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103330
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-19
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103330
Bug ID: 103330
Summary: [12 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/avx512fp16-vector-complex-float.c by
r12-5378
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103309
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
I first ran into it with r12-5074. I am using GCC 11.2.1 from Fedora 35
and binutils master branch. For r12-5074, the only change on the machine
is the GCC source.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103309
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > I first ran into it with r12-5074. I am using GCC 11.2.1 from Fedora 35
> > and binutils master branch. For r12-5074, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
This avoids the crash:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c
index 0f79e9f05bd..14c5ecdf119 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c
@@ -3443,7 +3443,7 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103205
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51784
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51784=edit
An incomplete patch
Hongtao, can you finish it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102911
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
The proposed fix should be submitted to GCC and put it in
libffi/LOCAL_PATCHES after it is checked in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51784|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103224
Bug ID: 103224
Summary: [12 Regression] FAIL:
libgomp.c/../libgomp.c-c++-common/target-in-reduction-
2.c (internal compiler error) by r12-5146
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103269
Bug ID: 103269
Summary: Enable ZMM in MOVE_MAX and STORE_MAX_PIECES without
-mprefer-vector-width=512
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103268
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103268
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8)
> unsigned long pscc_a_2_3;
> int pscc_a_1_4;
> unsigned long pc2;
> void pscc(int n)
> {
> long mask = 1ll << n;
> pc2 = __sync_fetch_and_or(_a_2_3, mask) & mask;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #15)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8)
> > > unsigned long pscc_a_2_3;
> > > int pscc_a_1_4;
> > > unsigned long pc2;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
Should we open a new bug for missed optimization?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103184
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103268
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51802
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51802=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> For this C code:
>
> long pscc_a_2_3;
> int pscc_a_1_4;
> void pscc()
> {
> pscc_a_1_4 = __sync_fetch_and_and(_a_2_3, 1);
> }
>
> compiled by recent gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103269
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51803
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51803=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103268
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103282
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Build|powerpc64-linux-gnu,|
|powerpc64le-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103235
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103235
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Works for me:
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 pr103235]$
/export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-gitlab-cross/build-csky-linux/gcc/cc1 -O2
pthread_cancel.i -I./ -quiet -w
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 pr103235]$
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103184
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103393
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> It isn't the vectorizer but memmove inline expansion. I'm not sure it's
> really a bug, but there isn't a way to disable %ymm use besides disabling
> AVX entirely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103419
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103419
Bug ID: 103419
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr102566-10b.c with -mx32
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103419
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51871
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51871=edit
A patch
Hongtao, please take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103335
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103184
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
The updated patch is at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/584464.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103065
Bug 103065 depends on bug 103069, which changed state.
Bug 103069 Summary: cmpxchg isn't optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103275
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7)
> vmovd have same issue, for simplify should we disable 32bit load for
> sse/mask register when memory_operand has PIC address.
Please disable specific UNSPEC operands
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103393
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #13)
> Also, note that the comment in gimple-fold.c prior to this change read:
>
> /* If we can perform the copy efficiently with first doing all loads
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #21)
> Another possibly-bug, but possibly mis-expectations on my behalf.
>
> I've found some code in the depths of Xen which is causing a failure on
> final link due to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to peterz from comment #7)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 51678 [details]
> > A patch to add -mharden-sls=
> >
> > x86: Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51678|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to peterz from comment #9)
> Created attachment 51683 [details]
> kernel patch to test -mharden-sls=all
>
> $ make O=defconfig CC=gcc-12.0.0 arch/x86/entry/common.o
> ...
> arch/x86/entry/common.o:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51679|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51684|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to peterz from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> > (In reply to peterz from comment #9)
> > > Created attachment 51683 [details]
> > > kernel patch to test -mharden-sls=all
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #8)
> Actually, there is a (possibly pre-existing) diagnostics issue:
>
> $ cat proto.c
> static void __attribute__((cf_check)) foo(void);
> static void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #15)
> So this is the irritating corner case where the two options are linked.
>
> *If* we are using -mindirect-branch-cs-prefix, then we intend to rewrite
> `jmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51672|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-tgl-2 pr102952]$ cat z2.i
extern void (*fptr) (int, int);
void
foo (int x, int y)
{
fptr (x, y);
}
[hjl@gnu-tgl-2 pr102952]$ make z2.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51687|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #11)
>
> There should be a diagnostic, but it ought to include cf_check in the type
> it prints.
Try the v3 patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #14)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #11)
> > >
> > > There should be a diagnostic, but it ought to include cf_check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51693|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102627
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
>
> Another possibility is to revert your patch so that others can bootstrap.
The problem won't go away as long as we keep syncing with upstream.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102923
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu works with libffi upstream on
gcc110.fsffrance.org.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102950
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
r11-3685 is bad and r11-3683 is good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51672
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51672=edit
Add -fcf-check-attribute=[yes|no]
-fcf-check-attribute=[yes|no] implies "cf_check" or "nocf_check"
function attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102904
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102675
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51659
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51659=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102923
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102923
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/libffi/l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18907
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
New list:
libatomic/Makefile.am: $(MULTIDO) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) DO=all multi-do # $(MAKE)
libffi/Makefile.am:AM_MAKEFLAGS = \
libffi/Makefile.am:FLAGS_TO_PASS = $(AM_MAKEFLAGS)
libgo/Makefile.am:AM_MAKEFLAGS = \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103066
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> If by fail you mean that it doesn't update the memory if the memory isn't
> equal to expected, sure, but do you mean it can fail spuriously, not update
> the memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Upstream bug was filed and fix proposed. IMHO we don't need to wait and can
> pull this fix temporarily.
Is there a pull request to fix it in upstream?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #23)
> Apologies for the delay, but I do now have a working prototype of Xen with
> CET-IBT active, using the current version of these patches.
>
> The result actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103066
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Instead of generating:
movlf(%rip), %eax
.L2:
movd%eax, %xmm0
addss .LC0(%rip), %xmm0
movd%xmm0, %edx
lock cmpxchgl %edx, f(%rip)
jne .L2
501 - 600 of 1125 matches
Mail list logo
