--- Comment #31 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-31 08:47
---
(In reply to comment #30)
> (In reply to comment #29)
> > Wouldn't it be better to just remove _Unwind_GetRegionStart?
> > This function is not part of the ARM EABI, and removing it would exp
--- Comment #27 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-22 23:48
---
The ARM ABI permits merging of unwind entries, so this should never default to
opt-in across the entire tool-chain. It might be that when GCC links java
programs that it should pass an option to the linker to
--- Comment #15 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-15 09:16
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> The bug was fixed for 4.5 by r148072:
>
> 2009-06-02 Richard Earnshaw
>
>* arm.c (arm_get_frame_offsets): Prefer using r3 for padding a
>push
--- Comment #5 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-24 14:17
---
As suggested, there's no bug in the compiler here, and the error message comes
from the linker. The linker doesn't know what the key function is, so I doubt
it could issue a more accurate diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-19 17:33
---
Fixed
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
--- Comment #1 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-19 17:32
---
Subject: Bug 38548
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Dec 19 17:31:12 2008
New Revision: 142838
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142838
Log:
PR target/38548
* arm
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 14:26
---
Confirmed. Also appears on trunk on an arm-elf cross with the flags:
-O3 -funroll-all-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -mno-apcs-frame -finline-functions
-mfpu=vfp -mfloat-abi=softfp -mcpu=arm926ej-s
We are
--- Comment #1 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-24 12:49
---
The testcase doesn't compile. Please attach a full, *compilable*, example of
the program that shows the bug.
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-30
16:12 ---
ARM ports have never accepted $ in identifiers. So this isn't a regression. In
fact, the only regression would be if they started doing so, since as Paul
points out, they are reserved by th
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-15
09:37 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> doko's patch triggers PR23256. gcc 3.3.3 on armeb appears to miscompile
> itself
> when SUBTARGET_CPU_DEFAULT is TARGET_CPU_arm6, but with TARGET_CPU_arm7tdmi
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25
02:04 ---
It's hard to be completely sure what's wrong here, but something *very*
suspcision appears near original source line 2669.
The good code (on ARM) contains:
.L1706:
.LBB453:
ldr r
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Status
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25
01:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=8281)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8281&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16152
---
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-25
01:49 ---
I've just reproduced this on arm-netbsdelf using gcc-3.3.3. I've managed to
track it down to a miscompilation of pp_hot.c, and the key flag seems to be
-fcse-skip-blocks (-O2 -fno-cse-skip-bl
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-16
22:00 ---
Patch fixes untyped returns properly using sfm/lfm as appropriate to avoid
potential type-conversion traps and also fixs returning types larger than a word
in integer registers. Should also work correctly
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-15
17:17 ---
Compiling the testcase with '-O3 -fPIC' using stock gcc-3.3.2 and gcc-3.3.5
configured for arm-linux produces identical assembly code for gauss_pivot_ker().
So I don't see what
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-15
11:59 ---
use_maximal_pivot() is casting longs to pointers and vice-versa. I strongly
suspect this code is violating C's aliasing rules. The inlining of the function
then opens up more chances for the schedul
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-25
16:13 ---
This has been fixed at some point -- at least, a recent build on ARM-linux
bootstrapped ok for me.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-06-22
16:19 ---
A quick look at the failing code suggests that it would be the second call to
get_insns in arm_finalize_pic that's the culprit here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16120
--
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-14
17:56 ---
Should be fixed with recent patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-01-12
16:11 ---
This _is_ a critical bug if you are trying to bootstrap on ARM LINUX.
--
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12527
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12527
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12527
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12527
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-13
12:41 ---
That's still ~800 lines of ChangeLog! Far too much for me to guess the cause.
Ca
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12527
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-11
12:06 ---
I don't have a machine that I can reproduce this on at the moment. Can you t
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11442
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-01
10:16 ---
> Is this something ARM specific? I can't find anything in the manual
> a
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11442
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-01
09:18 ---
Note for clarity. By "four bytes per statement" I mean between each semico
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11442
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11060
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11194
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11183
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11183
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10206
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10206
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
36 matches
Mail list logo
