Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zfigura at codeweavers dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 41652
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41652=edit
example program
An inlined function wh
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zfigura at codeweavers dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Wine adds several type attributes to all exposed API functions. A recent bug
related to gcc 8.1 [1] has led to the decision [2] to add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86407
--- Comment #2 from Zebediah Figura ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Not possible without creating a sub-option for the warning I guess. But if
> the attribute is a semantic one then it should be a type attribute rather
> than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86407
--- Comment #4 from Zebediah Figura ---
So is there any sensible way to make this attribute a type attribute instead of
a function attribute? Or is this not desirable?
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zfigura at codeweavers dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 56032
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56032=edit
reduced testcase, compile with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #3 from Zeb Figura ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1)
> > The warning given for the reduced test case is correct because it does not
> > make sense. It should be just rewritten as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669
--- Comment #6 from Zeb Figura ---
It is my impression that gcc is interested in avoiding false positives for its
warnings. This isn't to say that there aren't some number of false positives in
existence, but it is my impression that gcc is
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zfigura at codeweavers dot com
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111722
--- Comment #5 from Zeb Figura ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> There is no bug here.
> ICF finds that your definition of memcpy is the same as memmove and merges
> the 2 and then calls memcpy from your memmove and then inlines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111722
Zeb Figura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |13.2.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111722
--- Comment #3 from Zeb Figura ---
Created attachment 56072
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56072=edit
testcase
Attaching a reduced-ish testcase, that contains the unmodified code of memcpy()
and memmove(), plus two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #6 from Zebediah Figura ---
(In reply to Zebediah Figura from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/5969976.Bvae8NF9fS@polaris/
>
> Again, I'm not sure what you're
: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zfigura at codeweavers dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: i686
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #2 from Zebediah Figura ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This on purpose, it is only callbacks (from libc) and main that needs the
> realignment here.
I don't understand what you mean? It's not just libc and main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #4 from Zebediah Figura ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/5969976.Bvae8NF9fS@polaris/
Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here. I'm aware that
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zfigura at codeweavers dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 53562
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53562=edit
minimal test case
I encounte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106904
--- Comment #3 from Zebediah Figura ---
>From the warning, it seems like it thinks I wrote
memcpy(>wp.hwnd, , sizeof(wp));
but that's not what I wrote.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106904
--- Comment #2 from Zebediah Figura ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The warning is correct for the reduced testcase as we warning that you are
> copying the wrong size for the field
The field ">wp" is of size 16 (4 ints),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96367
Zebediah Figura changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zfigura at codeweavers dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96367
--- Comment #4 from Zebediah Figura ---
Forgot to mention:
leslie@terabithia:~/git/wine32$ gcc --version
gcc (Debian 12.2.0-1) 12.2.0
Copyright (C) 2022 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106904
--- Comment #8 from Zebediah Figura ---
Thanks!
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zfigura at codeweavers dot com
CC: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 55334
--> https://gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110260
--- Comment #11 from Zebediah Figura ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #10)
> Right, those are different issues. Any chance of a standalone testcase
> extracted from Wine? If you already see a function where stack realignment
> is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110273
--- Comment #1 from Zebediah Figura ---
Created attachment 55335
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55335=edit
gcc -v output, from godbolt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110260
Zebediah Figura changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zfigura at codeweavers dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110273
--- Comment #13 from Zeb Figura ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jens-Hanno Schwalm from comment #10)
> > Hi, i think we found a very-similar issue in darktable code, you might look
> > at
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #15 from Zeb Figura ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #14)
> > I'd say that
> >
> > config/i386/cygming.h:#define STACK_REALIGN_DEFAULT TARGET_SSE
> >
> > is a non-working "fix". The appropriate default would be
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07
--- Comment #17 from Zeb Figura ---
Actually, for that matter, what is the intended purpose of -mstackrealign? How
is it supposed to differ from -mincoming-stack-boundary and
-mpreferred-stack-boundary? The documentation is kind of unclear; it
28 matches
Mail list logo
