[Bug tree-optimization/45704] New: [4.5 Regression] load byte instruction is used for volatile int

: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704

[Bug libmudflap/38766] mudflap cannot detect errors on stack of nptl thread

--- Comment #2 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp 2010-05-06 06:23 --- I confirmed gcc 4.4.3 (fedora 12) behaves same. -- anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libmudflap/38766] New: mudflap cannot detect errors on stack of nptl thread

Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libmudflap AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp GCC target triplet: *-linux http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38766

[Bug target/28126] gcc moves an expensive instruction outside of a conditional

--- Comment #10 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp 2006-08-05 15:48 --- (In reply to comment #9) Created an attachment (id=12010) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12010action=view) [edit] A hackish fix I tried gcc 4.1 with this patch and compiled glibc 2.4

[Bug target/28126] gcc moves an expensive instruction outside of a conditional

--- Comment #7 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp 2006-07-21 16:34 --- (In reply to comment #6) Thanks. With this patch, gcc 4.1.1 produces expected output. It seems gcc 4.2 does not move rdhwr before branch without this patch, but I can not see why. I tried to find

[Bug tree-optimization/20643] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Tree loop optimizer does worse job than RTL loop optimizer

--- Comment #15 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp 2006-07-18 16:53 --- (In reply to comment #14) This is because it's an incoming parameter, and as a result, this doesn't look at all like an array access, but just a random pointer access. I have no plans to make the alias

[Bug tree-optimization/20643] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Tree loop optimizer does worse job than RTL loop optimizer

--- Comment #11 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp 2006-07-16 13:21 --- I have a similer optimization problem with this tiny function. void foo(int *a) { int i; for (i = 0; i 100; i++) a[0] += a[1]; } All gcc 4.x I tried generate load and store

[Bug target/28126] gcc moves an expensive instruction outside of a conditional

--- Comment #5 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp 2006-07-13 14:42 --- Created an attachment (id=11881) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11881action=view) do not put rdhwr instruction on delay slot With this patch, gcc 4.2 (with -O1, -O2) and gcc 4.1.1 with -O1

[Bug target/28126] gcc moves an expensive instruction outside of a conditional

--- Comment #6 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp 2006-07-13 14:58 --- (In reply to comment #2) Although I don't know much about the instruction scheduling, I had a similar problem on SH and it was workarounded with emitting blockage insns. The patch below might work for you

[Bug target/28126] gcc moves an expensive instruction outside of a conditional

--- Comment #3 from anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp 2006-07-06 16:20 --- Subject: Re: gcc moves an expensive instruction outside of a conditional One note: I think rdhwr $v1, $29 should not be placed in delay slot anyway. The instruction always generate an exception, so

[Bug c/28126] New: gcc moves an expensive instruction outside of a conditional

of a conditional Product: gcc Version: 4.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp GCC target

[Bug c/27236] New: a call for function with side-effects discarded by optimization

Version: 4.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: anemo at mba dot ocn dot ne dot jp http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27236