[Bug target/60408] New: ARM: inefficient code for vget_lane_f32 intrinsic

: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: mans at mansr dot com Consider this trivial function: #include arm_neon.h float foo(float32x2_t v) { return vget_lane_f32(v, 0) + vget_lane_f32(v, 1); } Compiling with gcc 4.9 trunk from 2014-03-02 yields this (non

[Bug target/58847] New: ARM: emit NEON alignment hints for 32/16-bit accesses

Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: mans at mansr dot com Created attachment 31070 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31070action=edit ARM: emit NEON alignment hints for 32/16-bit accesses This patch makes gcc use alignment hints

[Bug target/58699] New: ARM: emit PLDW instruction for prefetch with write intent

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: mans at mansr dot com Created attachment 30991 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30991action=edit Emit PLDW instruction for prefetch with write intent __builtin_prefetch(addr

[Bug target/55144] opening glibc-c.o: No such file or directory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55144 Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mans

[Bug middle-end/56964] New: ICE with -fno-sync-libcalls when target lacks atomic operations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56964 Bug #: 56964 Summary: ICE with -fno-sync-libcalls when target lacks atomic operations Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status:

[Bug target/55276] New: [4.8 regression] ppc: callee-saved vector registers not preserved

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55276 Bug #: 55276 Summary: [4.8 regression] ppc: callee-saved vector registers not preserved Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status:

[Bug target/55276] [4.8 regression] ppc: callee-saved vector registers not preserved

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55276 --- Comment #1 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2012-11-11 21:07:12 UTC --- Created attachment 28663 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28663 Test case

[Bug target/55147] New: x86: wrong code for 64-bit load

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55147 Bug #: 55147 Summary: x86: wrong code for 64-bit load Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/54721] Generate arm/thumb interwork veneers at compile time?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54721 --- Comment #2 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2012-10-24 12:44:24 UTC --- ARMv5T removed the need for most interworking with the addition of BLX and interworking POP instructions. That said, even armv7 needs some interworking

[Bug target/54473] Compiling advancemame on raspberry pi yields unrecognizable insn

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54473 --- Comment #1 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2012-10-24 13:28:25 UTC --- Confirmed with 4.6.3. No error with 4.5, 4.7, or 4.8. The Linaro 4.6 branch does not have the problem either, so whatever they've added seems to fix it.

[Bug target/54473] Compiling advancemame on raspberry pi yields unrecognizable insn

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54473 Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mans

[Bug target/52855] ARM: Internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2109

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52855 Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mans

[Bug target/55023] New: hppa: wrong code generated with tail call optimisation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023 Bug #: 55023 Summary: hppa: wrong code generated with tail call optimisation Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/55026] New: [Multiple targets] Inefficient code with structs passed by value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55026 Bug #: 55026 Summary: [Multiple targets] Inefficient code with structs passed by value Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status:

[Bug target/55026] Useless stores generated for structures passed by value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55026 --- Comment #3 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2012-10-22 19:34:25 UTC --- It has actually got worse over time. With 4.3 I get this: f: sub sp, sp, #8 mov r2, r0 stmia sp, {r0, r1

[Bug target/55026] Useless stores generated for structures passed by value

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55026 --- Comment #4 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2012-10-22 19:37:58 UTC --- For the record, clang/llvm gets this right.

[Bug target/54974] New: [ARM] Incorrect placement of constant pools

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974 Bug #: 54974 Summary: [ARM] Incorrect placement of constant pools Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/54974] [ARM] Incorrect placement of constant pools

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974 --- Comment #1 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2012-10-18 13:00:48 UTC --- Created attachment 28484 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28484 Hack patch This hack patch validates the analysis. A proper fix

[Bug tree-optimization/54132] [4.8 Regression] Incorrect loop transformation with -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54132 --- Comment #2 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2012-08-28 00:10:48 UTC --- I came upon another couple of cases where I believe this bug is causing wrong code. Let me know if you need more tests, and I'll reduce them.

[Bug tree-optimization/54245] New: [4.8 regression] incorrect optimisation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245 Bug #: 54245 Summary: [4.8 regression] incorrect optimisation Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug target/54212] New: ARM: invalid instruction (vdupeq.32) generated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54212 Bug #: 54212 Summary: ARM: invalid instruction (vdupeq.32) generated Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/54168] New: ARM: Redundant instructions emitted at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54168 Bug #: 54168 Summary: ARM: Redundant instructions emitted at -O3 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/54168] ARM: Redundant instructions emitted at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54168 --- Comment #1 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2012-08-03 17:15:47 UTC --- Created attachment 27933 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27933 Compiled test case

[Bug tree-optimization/54132] New: Incorrect loop transformation with -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54132 Bug #: 54132 Summary: Incorrect loop transformation with -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/52050] New: -Wdeclaration-after-statement does not warn on declaration in for loop initialiser

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52050 Bug #: 52050 Summary: -Wdeclaration-after-statement does not warn on declaration in for loop initialiser Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2

[Bug c/52050] -Wdeclaration-after-statement does not warn on declaration in for loop initialiser

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52050 --- Comment #2 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2012-01-29 23:34:12 UTC --- I tested and found it failing with 3.4.6, 4.1.2, 4.2.4, 4.3.6, 4.4.6, 4.5.3, and 4.6.2.

[Bug c/52050] Want an option to warn about a declaration inside a for/while/if statements.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52050 --- Comment #4 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2012-01-30 00:45:05 UTC --- I'm not here to argue semantics. I use -Wdeclaration-after-statement to avoid accidentally introducing code that will fail with compilers that do not support

[Bug middle-end/32667] builtin operator= generates memcpy with overlapping memory regions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667 Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mans at mansr dot

[Bug tree-optimization/49140] [4.6 regression] wrong code with -O2 and -O3, not with -O3 -no-inline

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49140 --- Comment #23 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2011-10-16 14:40:29 UTC --- Created attachment 25516 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25516 Small test case with invalid code exhibiting the problem Here's a small test

[Bug target/47719] ICE compiling libavcodec/adxdec.c (FFmpeg) for ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47719 --- Comment #2 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2011-02-17 12:46:24 UTC --- I can confirm this patch makes the file build without error. I have not tested the compiled code for correctness.

[Bug target/47719] New: ICE compiling libavcodec/adxdec.c (FFmpeg) for ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47719 Summary: ICE compiling libavcodec/adxdec.c (FFmpeg) for ARM Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug rtl-optimization/43721] Failure to optimise (a/b) and (a%b) into single __aeabi_idivmod call

--- Comment #4 from mans at mansr dot com 2010-04-14 21:34 --- The C99 standard says this about division by zero: The result of the / operator is the quotient from the division of the first operand by the second; the result of the % operator is the remainder. In both operations

[Bug rtl-optimization/43721] New: Failure to optimise (a/b) and (a%b) into single __aeabi_idivmod call

dot org ReportedBy: mans at mansr dot com GCC build triplet: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu GCC host triplet: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu GCC target triplet: arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43721

[Bug c/41567] Too small .bss stack

--- Comment #13 from mans at mansr dot com 2009-11-05 21:29 --- Removing -Bsymbolic caused many more of those messages. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41567

[Bug c/41567] Too small .bss stack

--- Comment #11 from mans at mansr dot com 2009-10-31 12:28 --- Adding -mno-sdata does not help. Note that the error messages are always referring to .bss, never to .sbss. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41567

[Bug middle-end/40887] GCC generates suboptimal code for indirect function calls on ARM

--- Comment #5 from mans at mansr dot com 2009-07-28 14:24 --- Just to be clear, this bug report is about *all* calls through function pointers. PR19599 only mentions a failed tail-call optimisation. That the example in this bug would benefit from this optimisation is secondary. I