https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #49 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #48)
From what Thomas says in comment #46 it looks like for some unknown
reason a HI load from a 1-byte aligned address is emitted:
Yep that's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #52 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #51)
TARGET_MEM_REF is supposed to be a valid memory access for the target though
and, by definition, an unaligned access is not valid for a strict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #53 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to thopre01 from comment #52)
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #51)
TARGET_MEM_REF is supposed to be a valid memory access for the target though
and, by definition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61375
--- Comment #2 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri Aug 1 08:56:17 2014
New Revision: 213426
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213426root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-08-01 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61375
--- Comment #3 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri Aug 1 09:46:47 2014
New Revision: 213436
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213436root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-08-01 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60070
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Folding of bitfield in a union is incorrect on big endian targets. Consider the
testcase given in attachment, u.b would be folded to 0x45678 instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #2 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I forgot to mention the flag to use: -O1 and whatever flag is necessary to
select a big endian target (for instance -mbig-endian if the target is arm
little endian by default).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #3 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Aug 12 02:36:37 2014
New Revision: 213846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213846root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-08-12 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #4 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Aug 13 09:37:41 2014
New Revision: 213899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213899root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-08-13 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Aug 14 06:16:56 2014
New Revision: 213941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213941root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-08-14 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #8 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Sep 10 04:45:32 2014
New Revision: 215101
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215101root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-09-10 Tony Wang tony.w...@arm.com
libstdc++-v3
ml
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63266
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63266
--- Comment #1 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Sep 24 08:27:21 2014
New Revision: 215546
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215546root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-09-24 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63266
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 33559
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33559action=edit
Testcase showing that __complex is not equivalent to __complex double in C++
In function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63366
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #4 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I detect no noticeable difference when bootstrapping gcc with or without the
patch so I think we're in for a fix. :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54733
--- Comment #3 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri May 23 03:33:28 2014
New Revision: 210843
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210843root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-23 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Jun 3 09:29:06 2014
New Revision: 211166
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211166root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-03 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #6 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Jun 11 10:04:33 2014
New Revision: 211444
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211444root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-11 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.9.0 |4.10.0
Known to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #35 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Now that PR61306 and the bswap-2 test issue are fixed in trunk, could you try
again a bootstrap without any of the patch you applied locally? I would like to
see if this bug is a duplicate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61375
--- Comment #1 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri Jun 13 03:17:02 2014
New Revision: 211604
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211604root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-13 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #38 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've just wrote a patch that solve a bug that can lead to the kind of issue you
are running into. I'm doing more testing right now and will let you know when
it's commited if you don't mind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61517
--- Comment #2 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I already got a patch for that which is currently under test. I checked against
this particular testcase and it indeed solves the problem. I'll add the
testcase to the patch and hopefully post
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61517
--- Comment #3 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Jun 18 10:43:50 2014
New Revision: 211778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211778root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-18 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #40 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Alright, change commited (r211778). Can you try another bootstrap with trunk to
see if your Bus error was this bug or another one still?
Thanks a lot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #43 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks. In the stage before the one that fails, could you add
-fdump-tree-all-details -fdump-rtl-all-details to the command line when
compiling that jcf-parse.c file and send me an archive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61559
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #8 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Mon Jun 30 01:58:45 2014
New Revision: 212133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212133root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-30 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #9 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Mon Jun 30 02:11:21 2014
New Revision: 212134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212134root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-06-30 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #45 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I only looked at differences in bswap so far and it all looks ok. It correctly
detects three patterns of 16bit big endian load and replace them by 16bit
unsigned loads and cast the results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #46 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
After expand, the newly created 16bit big endian load becomes:
(insn 688 687 689 (set (reg:HI 482)
(mem:HI (reg/v/f:SI 189 [ ptr ]) [0 MEM[base: ptr_110, offset: 0B]+0 S2
A8])) /vol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61517
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #11 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Confirmed. This is because the compiler will detect that the result of (a 8)
depends on the sign of a and thus prevent the optimization. Before this check
incorrect code could be generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri Oct 31 11:55:07 2014
New Revision: 216971
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216971root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-31 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61887
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63747
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63721
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
--- Comment #2 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can reproduce, thanks for the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
--- Comment #3 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I got a local patch that makes this code compile without error and I can build
gcc with this patch. I'm now going to run the testsuite, add some more comments
and try to make a reduced testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
--- Comment #4 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch has been posted for review at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg01042.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Nov 12 09:50:20 2014
New Revision: 217409
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217409root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-11-12 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #11 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Yvan Roux from comment #9)
Author: yroux
Date: Mon Oct 6 12:25:14 2014
New Revision: 215929
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215929root=gccview=rev
Log:
/libstdc++-v3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #13 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Yvan Roux from comment #12)
Hi Thomas,
Any chance you could backport for 4.8 Yvan? Do you want me to do it? Or are
the release manager against a 4.8 backport?
Do you mean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #15 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll take care of it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Nov 27 11:00:15 2014
New Revision: 218118
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218118root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-11-27 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #16 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Nov 27 13:58:35 2014
New Revision: 218126
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218126root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-11-13 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #17 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Nov 27 14:10:10 2014
New Revision: 218127
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218127root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-11-27 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #7 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
With r218705 on SH (-O2 -m4 -ml) I get the following:
unsigned short test_099 (unsigned short a, unsigned short b)
{
return (((a 0xFF00) 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #10 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
(In reply to thopre01 from comment #7)
Strange, could you show the output of -fdump-tree-bswap?
Not so strange at all.
What is strange
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #12 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #11)
(In reply to thopre01 from comment #10)
I have the same gimple and for me the bswap is correctly detected. Can you
break at find_bswap_or_nop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #14 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #13)
(In reply to thopre01 from comment #12)
That's good, it means the pattern is recognized. Is there an optab defined
for bswap16?
Nope. Just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #16 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15)
(In reply to thopre01 from comment #14)
You mean with the added bswaphi2 pattern the pattern is still unchanged?
After adding bswaphi2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #19 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, when doing something like (x[0] 8) | x[1]) 8) | x[2]) 8) |
x[3] there is already a depth proportional to the size of the value being byte
swapped with a coefficient due to casting
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc.dg/optimize-bswapdi-3.c started to fail about 2 weeks ago. Investigation
shows that the way bswap create the symbolic number that corresponds to a
bitwise OR is broken for big
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64436
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
When compiling for size, live high registers are not saved in function prolog
for ARM target. The following testcase can reproduce the problem:
void save_regs
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: arm-none-eabi
When compiling the below example with -O2, 2 ldr are generated to access the
variable some: one for the loop and one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64796
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Feb 4 01:54:47 2015
New Revision: 220388
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220388root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-04 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Feb 4 08:22:45 2015
New Revision: 220390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220390root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-04 Thomas Preud'homme
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
When compiling the below example with -O2, 2 ldr are generated to access the
variable some: one for the loop and one for the store.
int g (int);
unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64718
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-none-eabi
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
--- Comment #2 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For arm-none-linux-gnueabihf-gcc configured with --with-arch=armv7-a and
compiling without any -mcpu (so default cpu) the problem is also there:
stmfd sp!, {r4, r5, r6, lr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64796
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15184
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39246
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64796
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
These cases should all be covered by the patch posted [1], shouldn't it?
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02380.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 64458 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63743
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, I have a local fix. The existing testcase didn't catch it because the
precision of the bitfield is not a multiple of CHAR_BITS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64718
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Jan 28 10:20:19 2015
New Revision: 220203
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220203root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-28 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64458
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64436
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64458
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Ramana,
As said in PR64616, this happens with the default cpu selected when configuring
with --with-arch=armv7-a.
Best regards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #8)
looks like this fix is too conservative. it will disable const fold for
bit-field completely. for bitfld-6/little-endian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63259
--- Comment #21 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Jan 6 11:51:16 2015
New Revision: 219256
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219256root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-06 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64436
--- Comment #1 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Jan 13 11:23:01 2015
New Revision: 219525
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219525root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-13 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64453
--- Comment #1 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Jan 14 11:51:40 2015
New Revision: 219592
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219592root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-14 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-10 00:00:00 |2015-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #11)
0x1a00 +1024: bl 0x15b0 _init+112
0x1a04 +1028: ld r2,24(r1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63743
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Mon Mar 9 01:31:42 2015
New Revision: 221276
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221276root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-09 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63743
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64453
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Mar 3 09:32:44 2015
New Revision: 221135
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221135root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-01-23 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63743
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Mar 4 05:56:54 2015
New Revision: 221173
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221173root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-04 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Mar 4 05:51:08 2015
New Revision: 221172
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221172root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-04 Thomas Preud'homme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64453
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Mar 4 02:06:07 2015
New Revision: 221170
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221170root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-04 Thomas Preud'homme
1 - 100 of 431 matches
Mail list logo
