https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac2347289d4d8000a078b540b6c9c2c74bb33471
commit r10-9121-gac2347289d4d8000a078b540b6c9c2c74bb33471
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb79f4db49c5f5a807555e9d374524664eb537bf
commit r11-5749-geb79f4db49c5f5a807555e9d374524664eb537bf
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5db1fa9bc69dd58ce2f93dd707d05efcfe89ffa8
commit r11-2682-g5db1fa9bc69dd58ce2f93dd707d05efcfe89ffa8
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f49c66ed4e060c333d8bcd5e4ae127ab7bca15b
commit r10-8468-g6f49c66ed4e060c333d8bcd5e4ae127ab7bca15b
Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4aca1edaf37d43b2b7e9111825837a7a317b1b0
commit r11-2045-ga4aca1edaf37d43b2b7e9111825837a7a317b1b0
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7)
> The Arm AAPCS has detailed rules for operations on individual volatile
> bit-fields, but not for this case where the whole struct is volatile and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The Arm AAPCS has detailed rules for operations on individual volatile
bit-fields, but not for this case where the whole struct is volatile and
the operation is on the whole struct. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So for example
diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
index b97c217e86d..a980811c1e9 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/expr.c
@@ -8263,7 +8263,8 @@ expand_constructor (tree exp, rtx target, enum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
We're going through
rtx
store_expr (tree exp, rtx target, int call_param_p,
bool nontemporal, bool reverse)
{
...
normal_expr:
/* If we want to use a nontemporal or a reverse order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed on arm. The odd thing is that the optimized GIMPLE for foo() is
much nicer:
foo ()
{
[local count: 153437707]:
MEM[(volatile struct t0 *)655404B] ={v} a0[0];
MEM[(volatile struct t0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
For various targets and gcc versions I've noticed this bug as far back as
gcc-4.7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-14
14 matches
Mail list logo
