--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-04
23:29 ---
But GCC *does* look into the string in -funit-at-a-time mode. It doens't only
in -fno-unit-at-a-time-mode, and so it fails to emit static functions that are
referenced in aliases. It should behave the same
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-04 23:29
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 3, 2005, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this is the wrong approach.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||ericw at evcohs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20296
Hello,
the attached code, when compiled with -O1, produce a code which segfaults. I'm
quite embarrassed with the host/target/build triplet asked in the form, since I
tested it to segfault on several platforms, namly:
powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-8)
--- Additional Comments From Martin dot Quinson at loria dot fr 2005-03-05
00:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=8332)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8332action=view)
minimal test case
The promised attachement
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20327
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
The following code (taken from L4Ka::Pistachio) compiles correctly on gcc
(3.3.4, 3.3.5, and 3.4.4) when given any optimization level, but fails when you
don't use any:
$ cat foo.c
unsigned char
inb (unsigned long port)
{
unsigned char tmp;
if (port 0x100)
__asm__ __volatile__ (inb %w1,
--
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #8332|text/x-csrc |text/plain
mime type||
--
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #8332|text/x-csrc |text/plain
mime type||
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-03-05
01:25 ---
What is exactly the problem? I don't see anything wrong if a program which
allocates 720K on the stack segfaults. Try increasing your stack size.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-03-05
01:26 ---
Which target triplet?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20328
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
01:27 ---
This is a dup of bug 12828 which is fixed for 3.4.0.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12828 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12828 ***
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
01:27 ---
*** Bug 20327 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
01:29 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
What is exactly the problem? I don't see anything wrong if a program which
allocates 720K on the stack segfaults. Try increasing your stack size.
Just a note, That is not the
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
01:31 ---
You don't want the al contstraint at all.
Read the docs to figure out which constaint you really want. the constraint
al means pick either the
a constraint or the l constraint
--
What
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
01:41 ---
Subject: Bug 19797
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-05 01:40:48
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
01:59 ---
Subject: Bug 19797
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-05 01:59:24
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite :
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
02:59 ---
Subject: Bug 18815
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-05 02:59:25
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-if-conv.c
Log
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
03:02 ---
Subject: Bug 18815
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-05 03:02:32
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
03:14 ---
Fixed in CVS http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg00440.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
First of all, sorry for a very vague bug report, this is hard to trace down
and I'm short on time.
Compiling a Linux kernel with athlon optimisations with current gcc 3.4.4
snapshots results in a kernel that Oopses on bootup on most (though not all)
Athlon machines.
Optimising for
--- Additional Comments From mrd at alkemio dot org 2005-03-05 06:44
---
Subject: Re: assembly constraints fail unless optimizing code
On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 01:26 +, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
Which target triplet?
i386-pc-linux-gnu
--
--- Additional Comments From mrd at alkemio dot org 2005-03-05 06:52
---
Subject: Re: assembly constraints fail unless optimizing code
On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 01:31 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
You don't want the al contstraint at all.
Read the docs to figure out
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
07:43 ---
We really need a small example code to figure this one out. This could be
stilll a linux kernel bug. I
know for a fact the kernel does not follow the aliasing rules at all.
--
What
101 - 124 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
