[Bug other/70268] add option -ffile-prefix-map to map one directory name (old) to another (new) in __FILE__, __BASE_FILE__and __builtin_FILE()

2017-12-19 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268 --- Comment #15 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- (In reply to infinity0 from comment #14) > > it has a unified option (-ffile-prefix-map) [..] > > Oh, nice. That might save me some work, then. > > Could you bounce me the

[Bug other/70268] add option -ffile-prefix-map to map one directory name (old) to another (new) in __FILE__, __BASE_FILE__and __builtin_FILE()

2017-12-15 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268 --- Comment #14 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- > it has a unified option (-ffile-prefix-map) [..] Oh, nice. That might save me some work, then. Could you bounce me the thread? Or failing that, tell me the Message-ID of one of the messa

[Bug other/70268] add option -ffile-prefix-map to map one directory name (old) to another (new) in __FILE__, __BASE_FILE__and __builtin_FILE()

2017-12-15 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268 infinity0 at pwned dot gg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||infinity0 at pwned dot gg

[Bug rtl-optimization/82677] Many projects (linux, coreutils, GMP, gcrypt, openSSL, etc) are misusing asm(divq/divl) etc, potentially resulting in faulty/unintended optimisations

2017-10-24 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677 --- Comment #9 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7) > [..] > > You still have to mark stmts with side-effects as volatile. > > Conditional side-effects are tricky to get correct of c

[Bug rtl-optimization/82677] Many projects (linux, coreutils, GMP, gcrypt, openSSL, etc) are misusing asm(divq/divl) etc, potentially resulting in faulty/unintended optimisations

2017-10-24 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677 infinity0 at pwned dot gg changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42439|0 |1 is obsolete

[Bug rtl-optimization/82677] Many projects (linux, coreutils, GMP, gcrypt, openSSL, etc) are misusing asm(divq/divl) etc, potentially resulting in faulty/unintended optimisations

2017-10-23 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677 --- Comment #6 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- What I mean is, even if you do change GCC to fix the unintended optimisation, other projects' code are *still wrong* - it's only correct if you can assume the C compiler is optimising your code

[Bug rtl-optimization/82677] Many projects (linux, coreutils, GMP, gcrypt, openSSL, etc) are misusing asm(divq/divl) etc, potentially resulting in faulty/unintended optimisations

2017-10-23 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677 --- Comment #5 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > [..] > It's still safe to move the asm in > > int main() { > ulong d = 0; > for (ulong i = 0; i < 3; i++) > fo

[Bug inline-asm/82677] Many projects (linux, coreutils, GMP, gcrypt, openSSL, etc) are misusing asm(divq/divl) etc, potentially resulting in faulty/unintended optimisations

2017-10-23 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677 --- Comment #2 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- More immutable version of [5]: [5] https://gmplib.org/repo/gmp/annotate/046bc83644a3/longlong.h#l1574

[Bug inline-asm/82677] Many projects (linux, coreutils, GMP, gcrypt, openSSL, etc) are misusing asm(divq/divl) etc, potentially resulting in faulty/unintended optimisations

2017-10-23 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677 --- Comment #1 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- Created attachment 42440 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42440=edit Similar test case using macros from GMP et. al.

[Bug inline-asm/82677] New: Many projects (linux, coreutils, GMP, gcrypt, openSSL, etc) are misusing asm(divq/divl) etc, potentially resulting in faulty/unintended optimisations

2017-10-23 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: inline-asm Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: infinity0 at pwned dot gg Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 42439

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

2016-10-14 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 infinity0 at pwned dot gg changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #39812|0 |1 is obsolete

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

2016-10-14 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #8 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6) > So I just fixed the bug here, but yes, I don't know about the design > decision. I suppose CWD was decided to be useless in case of an ab

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

2016-10-14 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #7 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- Created attachment 39812 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39812=edit Emit DW_AT_comp_dir even if filename is an absolute path Suggested patch attached, with a test case. N

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

2016-10-14 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #5 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- > Piggybacking a slightly unrelated issue: [..] Upon further investigation it seems that, whilst the debug-prefix-maps do not get applied to DW_AT_name filenames in the output of -dA, it does

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

2016-10-14 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #4 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- Thanks for the quick response! What is the reason for "absolute paths are supposed to omit it"? I'm reading the DWARF spec and I can't find a mention of this anywhere. Even if

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

2016-10-14 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #1 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- Created attachment 39811 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39811=edit Reproduce the bug; set CC to try it with different compilers

[Bug debug/77985] New: DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

2016-10-14 Thread infinity0 at pwned dot gg
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: debug Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: infinity0 at pwned dot gg Target Milestone: --- Hi, GCC 7.0.0 (latest snapshot) and GCC 6.1.1 both exhibit the following behaviour: + gcc-build