https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On November 8, 2017 5:04:39 PM GMT+01:00, "nisse at lysator dot liu.se"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
>
>--- Comment #12 from Niels Möller
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #12 from Niels Möller ---
It would be nice with some way to annotate the asm to have it treated in the
same as a possibly trapping division or pointer dereference.
E.g., adding "trap" to the clobber list, somewhat similar to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, nisse at lysator dot liu.se wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
>
> Niels Möller changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
Niels Möller changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nisse at lysator dot liu.se
--- Comment
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 course.
I think
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is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017, infinity0 at pwned dot gg wrote:
> 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
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 in
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++)
> for (ulong j = 0; j < 3; j++)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
10 matches
Mail list logo