: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I'm getting an ICE when I try to link while a symbol is used but not defined.
Unfortunately, the project is closed s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93772
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction on how to reduce
> the sources down to something which you might be able to share with us.
Hello Andre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
Bug #: 54829
Summary: bad optimization: sub followed by cmp w/ zero (x86 &
ARM)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bad optimization: sub |bad optimization: sub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Santos 2012-10-06
15:57:15 UTC ---
Please help me out here if I am missing something.
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
#include
union a {
struct {
const char string[0];
} b;
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
std::cout << "size = " &
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57977
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Santos ---
Don't you mean the part which prohibits its creation?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57977
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos ---
Hmm, I guess it's actually the copy assignment operator. Either way, it makes
sense if the const union member was "real", in this case, the copy assignment
for this member would be a no-op (were we to copy it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58005
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
I am working on a Linux kernel patch set to add a feature comprable to glibc's
%m format specifier. However, glibc's extensions uses e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58512
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Santos ---
Ahh, thanks so much! Sorry I failed to find the related bugs. :(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3507
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85621
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Santos ---
Thank you Rainer!
ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Target: mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu
Created attachment 44313
--> https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88617
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> @Daniel: Can you please take a look?
My apologies for missing this one! I'll take a look.
: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43095
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43095&action=edit
test case
The layout of bi
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86-64-*-*
Here is an example.
0x7bc8fd8e 465 if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83917
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Testcase would be nice.
*sigh* Yes, I've seen that there are tests that run gdb through expect, I
haven't learned how to use that yet.
(In reply to Jakub Jel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90163
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Santos ---
Yes, this is mine. Does this only become untranslatable when feature is
"static call chains"?
iiuc, static call chains are only used with nested functions (a GNU C
extension) and closure functions -- is thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68931
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83917
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Patch posted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01294.html
My apologies on dropping the ball here and thanks for picking it up! :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83917
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Santos ---
You are AWESOME!! :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87928
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9)
> Fixed everywhere.
Thank you Uros, great work!
It's an easy mistake to assume that you're "on one system/ABI or another" and
forget about function-level attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71958
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Dansan: Can you please update Known to work?
Hi Martin,
I don't have bugzilla admin access. I'm actually missing my gcc git repo due
to a faulty backup when i c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71958
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Santos ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81519
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #9)
> (In reply to Daniel Santos from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > > Ok, so I've briefly investigated source code and providing such
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54829
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Santos 2012-11-15
21:56:02 UTC ---
First off, I apologize for my late response here.
(In reply to comment #5)
I'm going to respond a little backwards..
> In fact, on ARM there is no branch instruction that c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55678
Bug #: 55678
Summary: _Static_assert escapes tick marks just to make me mad
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55678
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Santos 2012-12-13
21:12:24 UTC ---
This appears to happen in the function
c_parser_static_assert_declaration_no_semi (gcc/c/c-parser.c) when it calls
"c_parser_peek_token (parser)->value", but I don't know gcc's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80969
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41794&action=edit
proposed fix (still needs cleanup and tests)
This still needs cleanup and tests as well as some explanations, b
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
Target Milestone: ---
To be clear, there is a working solution and that is to run a command such as
this:
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39851
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81519
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> I can take a look later for GCC 8.0.
Thank you Martin! I still don't understand enough of gcc to be able to do this
in any reasonable time frame and I've only wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Santos ---
For those interested in a work-around, you can define an __attribute__((used))
function and then within that function use inline assembly to declare your real
function. This can get messy depending upon how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967
--- Comment #19 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #18)
> Implemented for gcc 8.
Awesome! There are actually a number of times over the years that I've wished
this were implemented, thanks! :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #61 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #60)
> At revision r250610 I still see
>
> WARNING: Could not generate
> /opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/testsuite/gcc/ms-sysv/ms-sysv-generated.h
Thank you for the repo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #63 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41943
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41943&action=edit
test patch for uncaught exception in generator
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #62)
> Created a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81850
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Santos ---
I have a patch that I've tested and will be submitting it shortly (I can't
change the assigned to field yet).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81850
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81519
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Ok, so I've briefly investigated source code and providing such information
> is definitely not a simple task :/
Sorry for my late response and thanks for looking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82002
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #0)
> Starting from r251321 we ICE on:
>
> $ cat stack-check.ii
> void a (char *);
> void
> b ()
> {
> char c[100];
> c[1099511627776] = 'b';
> a (c);
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81519
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Ok, so I've briefly investigated source code and providing such information
> is definitely not a simple task :/
>
> I would recommend to fix PR39851 and then one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82002
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Santos ---
Another problem when we throw in an ms to sysv call:
$ cat /home/daniel/proj/sys/gcc/git/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82002-2a.c
/* { dg-do compile { target lp64 } } */
/* { dg-options "-Ofast -mstackreal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86-64-*-*
The new -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues is nice but it would be ideal for its use to be
determined automatically
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82002
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 42147
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42147&action=edit
incomplete patch set with test
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Of course there is none. Which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82002
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Daniel Santos from comment #4)
> The alternative that I can see is to modify choose_baseaddr so that it can
> init and utilize an auxiliary register (like r11).
I guess this would be called a "s
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-*-*
The test for rather we use movaps or vmovaps is in
libgcc/config/i386/i386-asm.h and tests the cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82196
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 42163
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42163&action=edit
proposed fix minus tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39851
--- Comment #17 from Daniel Santos ---
Thanks for all your work on this Martin. I've put a script up on my github
account (https://github.com/daniel-santos/distccflags), updated the Gentoo
Distcc instructions and sent distcc a mail to notify the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82196
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
CC: mjambor at suse dot cz
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 41350
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> It seems to me that ms-sysv.exp is seriously misguided in trying to do all
> its compilations manually instead of using
> dg-test/dg-runtest/gcc_target_compile
> wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Santos ---
Actually, I just realized that it won't help to move do_test.S into ms-sysv.c
as inline asm because each test still needs a unique ms-sysv-generated.h header
that's generated by the output of gen.cc. Althoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Santos ---
OK, I think I've got these fixed but I need to rerun my tests now. Somebody
else discovered another flaw that caused the test to break with -j1 (when
parallelization wasn't being used). I hate that I've had
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41386
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41386&action=edit
proposed fix
Rainer,
Would you be so kind as to test this on Solaris for me please? I don't have
access to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
> > Well, this was my introduction to DejaGnu and the test harness. I found
> > that
> > none of these support doing a build when there is more th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78962
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Santos ---
Thank you again for the assistance.
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #8)
> Daniel,
>
> > Would you be so kind as to test this on Solaris for me please? I don't have
> > access to a So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41386|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41396|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41398
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41398&action=edit
proposed fix v2 part 2
Formatting, comments and other aesthetic changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #16 from Daniel Santos ---
Sorry for my delayed response. I'm working on adding extended tests triggered
by an environment variable (because I needed to better validate somebody else's
changes to my -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues feature and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #17 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #15)
> Created attachment 41404 [details]
> Switch ms-sysv to more regular dg functions
You may be surprised to learn how many faulty assumptions you may have about
how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #18 from Daniel Santos ---
I intended to respond to your comments from 6 days ago sooner, but better late
than never! Again, sorry for the delay
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #14)
> You need to make certain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #21 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #20)
> > failures, but if you call dg-runtest, you are using gcc's hack-daptation of
> > parallelization. However, your patch doesn't remove *my* hack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41397|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #23 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41487&action=edit
proposed fix v3 part 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #24 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41488
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41488&action=edit
proposed fix v3 part 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #25 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41489
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41489&action=edit
proposed fix v3 part 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #26 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41490
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41490&action=edit
proposed fix v3 part 5
I'm currently running a few jobs to try to measure the difference in load
average and r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #29 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #28)
> As I've said before, the parallelization of ms-sysv.exp runs may be a
> bonus, but is certainly separate from this PR and thus should be split
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41486|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41532|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #36 from Daniel Santos ---
Thank you for all of your work on this. The .cfi directives shouldn't be *too*
critical -- I've barely scratched the surface of learning DWARF and, iirc, the
last time I stepped through these stubs in gdb i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #37 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Daniel Santos from comment #36)
> tutor! :) This is assembly with cpp, so the gas .macro could be replaced
> with a cpp macro, but is that acceptable considering that it would result in
> mult
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #38 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41543
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41543&action=edit
proposed fix v5 addendum (only partially tested)
I've only run check on RUNTESTFLAGS="ms-sysv.exp" so far and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41543|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41544|proposed fix v5 addendum|proposed fix v5 addendum
descript
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41533|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #48 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41588
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41588&action=edit
proposed fix v6 2/2 (libgcc)
The only thing this changes from your patches is some macro names and testing
HAV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #50 from Daniel Santos ---
Created attachment 41605
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41605&action=edit
darwin fixup (on top of v6)
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #49)
>
> No worries at al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #53 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #52)
> Unfortunately, the patch doesn't work, apart from the
>
> +# define PCREL "@GETPCREL"
>
> -> @GOTPCREL typo ;-)
Ah hah! That would explain wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41605|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #56 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #55)
> > --- Comment #54 from Daniel Santos ---
> > Created attachment 41627 [details]
> > --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41627&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80969
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos ---
Thank you for the report Martin. I apologize for my slow start on this, I've
been a bit under the weather. So when I wrote the code for using aligned SSE
saves with realigned (non-DRAP) stack pointer and th
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
Target Milestone: ---
void b (void); /* Normal System V function. */
__attribute__((ms_abi, force_align_arg_pointer)) void a (void
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Built from the head on Windows 7 using cywgin64.
Configured with:
/home/daniel/proj/sys/gcc/work0/configure --host=x86_64-pc-cygwin
--build=x86_64-pc-cygwin --target=x86_64-pc-cygwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79771
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos ---
I'm guessing that either they didn't test on Cygwin or they tested on a
pre-release version or I have some local/environmental issue, although my
environment was just recently generated.
Upstream is at 1.2.1
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: daniel.santos at pobox dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Running the testsuite resulted in 15,308 instances of the error message
"cyggfortran-4.dll: cannot open shared o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79867
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Santos ---
Minor correction: LD_LIBRARY_PATH is used to resolve lib names when dlopen() is
called, but not for load-time linking.
There are also a few other complications on Cygwin. DLLs (including libgcc)
are stored
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
--- Comment #19 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #18)
> The Linux kernel also has a bunch of printf format extensions that GCC
> doesn't know anything about:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/printk-formats.t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82485
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82268
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82002
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Santos ---
Was about to submit a patch set for this that added this nifty mechanism to
track a scratch register for pro/epilogue use and automatically (re)use it when
you call choose_baseaddr. Then I realized that I co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82712
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Santos ---
Could you please close this as a duplicate of pr82002? I've got a (full) fix
submitted now. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82485
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Santos ---
Can you please mark this as a duplicate of pr82002? I have a fix submitted.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82827
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83117
Daniel Santos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61939
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Vedran Miletic from comment #1)
> #include
> #include
> float f(std::vector& A, std::vector& B)
> {
> __builtin_assume_aligned(A.data(), 64);
> __builtin_assume_aligned(B.data(), 64);
> r
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
