https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69648
Bug ID: 69648
Summary: wrong code with -O -mtune=winchip-c6 -fPIC
-fexpensive-optimizations -msse4 @ i686
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69644
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69647
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69647
Bug ID: 69647
Summary: gcc build for avr-unknown-elf
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69646
Bug ID: 69646
Summary: multiple warnings with -Wintrinsics-std
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69184
Sujoy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ssaraswati at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org |vmakarov at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69102
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Andrey Belevantsev from comment #4)
> Created attachment 37550 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> The problem here is readonly dependence contexts in selective scheduler.
> We're trying to cach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30811
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2016-2-2
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69643
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Address space discarded |Address space discarded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69645
Bug ID: 69645
Summary: powerpc -ffixed- ignored when saving and
restoring regs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69644
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-*-linux-*
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69644
Bug ID: 69644
Summary: ICE with -O on __sync_bool_compare_and_swap with short
in extract_insn, at recog.c:2286
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
--- Comment #18 from Josh Kelley ---
Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69404
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2016-2-2
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67282
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
Are gcc 5 and 6 in your setup linked against different versions of ISL? In my
case, it was 0.15 for all installed gcc versions back in December and 0.16, for
all of them as well, as for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #12)
> (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #11)
> > More reduced test case, that does not depend on -ipa-icf:
> >
> > struct R
> > {
> > R (const R&) { }
> > };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69643
Bug ID: 69643
Summary: Address space discarded inside statement expression
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69641
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Since the manual says that "... The four non-arithmetic functions (load, store,
exchange, and compare_exchange) all have a generic version as well. This
generic version works on any data type." I believe the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69642
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69453
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Same question for Markus. Sorry for conflating the two of you. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
--- Comment #10 from Craig Smith ---
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #8)
> That version does not exist in RHEL7. Looks like it was a Mandriva thing:
> https://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/mandriva/devel/cooker/x86_64/media/main/
> release
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69642
Bug ID: 69642
Summary: command-line spell check should know about "no-"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69577
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69641
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69641
Bug ID: 69641
Summary: invalid int32 comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think it's OK for stage 4 - the t-hardfp point is that you'd get a
smaller, faster libgcc on FreeBSD that way, by not compiling soft-fp at
all for non-float128 hard float.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #11)
> More reduced test case, that does not depend on -ipa-icf:
>
> struct R
> {
> R (const R&) { }
> };
>
> __attribute__ ((noreturn)) R f ();
>
> R
> c ()
> {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
Andy Lutomirski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |major
--- Comment #9 from Andy Lutomir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
--- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski ---
That version does not exist in RHEL7. Looks like it was a Mandriva thing:
https://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/mandriva/devel/cooker/x86_64/media/main/release/xz-5.1.2-0.alpha.1.x86_64.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69640
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
--- Comment #7 from Craig Smith ---
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Craig Smith from comment #5)
> > For example, on RHEL 7, liblzma.so.5 is linked with -Ofast, which also
> > triggers crtfastmath.o to be used, corrup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
--- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski ---
(In reply to Craig Smith from comment #5)
> For example, on RHEL 7, liblzma.so.5 is linked with -Ofast, which also
> triggers crtfastmath.o to be used, corrupting the mxcsr register at library
> load time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
Craig Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spathiwa at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69635
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to h2+bugs from comment #3)
> Thank you for the quick replies!
>
> > Did you build gcc6 with --enable-checking=release ?
>
> I am using the pre-built FreeBSD packages, I have checked, and it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69635
--- Comment #3 from h2+bugs at fsfe dot org ---
Thank you for the quick replies!
> Did you build gcc6 with --enable-checking=release ?
I am using the pre-built FreeBSD packages, I have checked, and it seems it is
not the case. That likely explai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
--- Comment #14 from Tom Hughes ---
Yes upstream took my fix to avoid the equality
(https://github.com/mapnik/node-mapnik/pull/589) but have also now noticed that
most of the FP can be one away with completely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Or, you know, operate on integers. Skip the / 255.0 step where it is
unnecessary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69639
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
(gdb) r
Starting program: /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/stage1-gcc/cc1 -fpreprocessed
limits-exprparen.i -quiet -dumpbase limits-exprparen.c -auxbase-strip
limits-exprparen.o -O0 -w -version -fdiagnostics-color=ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69640
Bug ID: 69640
Summary: ~SomeClass() = default; incorrectly considered a
"user-declared destructor"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
--- Comment #44 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #43)
> FWIW, the proposed patch for PR69577 fixes this testcase
> with the aarch64_cannot_change_mode_class change reverted.
> The code quality looks slightly bet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69639
Bug ID: 69639
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69638
Bug ID: 69638
Summary: array out of bounds access accepted in constexpr
function invocation
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn ---
Joseph, is the patch proposed in the original description okay as fix for stage
4 or you want a __NO_FPRS__ addressed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:35:35PM +, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611
>
> --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com> ---
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69612
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69637
Bug ID: 69637
Summary: ICE on an invalid bit-field with template name for
width
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69636
Bug ID: 69636
Summary: ICE(s) on using option -fmodule-private
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69514
--- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Test case from comment 0 can be reduced to e.g.
$ cat z3.f90
program p
real, parameter :: w(2) = [real :: 0, 3.0*[real :: 2]]
print *, w
end program
$ gfortran-6 -c z3.f90
f951: internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69635
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69612
--- Comment #2 from Roar Lauritzsen ---
Thanks a lot for the quick analysis. Now that I know what it is I can fix my
program, and the -fsanitize=undefined will come in handy for localizing problem
areas. For future googlers, I am planning to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69423
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Dear Anthony,
In reply to your email message, this one is high on my list of PRs to fix. A
workaround, which could be permanent, is:
program tester
character(LEN=:), allocatable :: S
S= test(2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69568
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69635
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Did you build gcc6 with --enable-checking=release ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69634
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69635
Bug ID: 69635
Summary: 4x increase of build time [4.9 -> 6.0]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69296
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #5 from ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64152
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||renlin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69634
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69634
Bug ID: 69634
Summary: -fcompare-debug failure (length) with -O2 -fno-dce
-fschedule-insns -fno-tree-vrp @ i686
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69633
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
Target Milesto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69633
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 37559
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37559&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Need to be compiled with -O2 -m32 -pie -fPIE.
Assume that -march=slm is not needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69632
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
ticed that for
attached simple test-case extracted from real benchmark one more redundant move
instruction is generated (till 20160202 compiler build):
before fix (postreload dump)
86: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK 4
40: dx:QI=[si:SI]
41: ax:QI=[si:SI+0x1]
42: {si:SI=si:SI+0x3;clobber flags:CC;}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69277
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
In response to another patch for a related problem Jason asked me to change the
representation of flexible array members in C++. The alternate representation
has an impact on how this bug is dealt with so it'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Or lose the equality tests on the max values, instead use something like
if (b > r && b >= g)
I suppose that could still have problems if b and g are equal and one of them
is spilled. Someone who knows tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69632
Bug ID: 69632
Summary: No error issued for declaring a parameter having a
late-specified return type without the 'auto' type
specifier
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69630
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
-system-zlib --disable-bootstrap --disable-libvtv
--disable-libcilkrts --disable-libitm --disable-libgomp --disable-libcc1
--disable-libstdcxx-pch --disable-libssp --enable-isl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.3.1 20160202 (GCC)
But not anymore with 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69631
Bug ID: 69631
Summary: Bogus overflow in constant expression error
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
--- Comment #16 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Feb 2 16:10:04 2016
New Revision: 233081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67032
* config/i386/i386.c (geode_cost)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
--- Comment #15 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Feb 2 16:08:56 2016
New Revision: 233080
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233080&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67032
* config/i386/i386.c (geode_cost)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
--- Comment #14 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Feb 2 16:07:24 2016
New Revision: 233079
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233079&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67032
* config/i386/i386.c (geode_cost)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69626
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69630
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 37557
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37557&action=edit
test.ii test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69630
Bug ID: 69630
Summary: [6 Regression] LTO ICE in types_same_for_odr at
ipa-devirt.c:402
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
--- Comment #11 from Tom Hughes ---
This is C++ so -fexcess-precision=standard is no help as that is C only.
Likewise -ffloat-store is, as I understand it, not much help in real world code
because you need to make sure that you force stores in o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69595
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69599
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Bisection shows this started with r226901, the big copyrename dropping patch.
I didn't investigate whether it's actually the cause of the bug or just exposes
another latent one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69595
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 2 15:19:32 2016
New Revision: 233076
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233076&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69595
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624
--- Comment #17 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Jakub, I guess you can close this.
Sorry again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624
--- Comment #16 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
> Could you please push that to the syzkaller tree [1] then?
Sorry, syzkaller page referred to outdated patch. I was hoping that Andrew will
take it soon, so that I can update the link to a more respected l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624
--- Comment #15 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #14)
> If you apply the latest kcov patch "[PATCH v6] kernel: add kcov code
> coverage", it should work.
Could you please push that to the syzkaller tree [1] then?
[1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #9)
> Ah, of course.
>
> 804856f: df ec fucomip %st(4),%st
>
> pc 0x804856f 0x804856f
> st00.5019607843137254902
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624
--- Comment #14 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Wait, I already disabled instrumentation of hweight.c for because of this:
+# Kernel does not boot if we instrument this file as it uses custom calling
+# convention (see CONFIG_ARCH_HWEIGHT_CFLAGS).
+KCOV_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems hweight.c is compiled with
-fcall-saved-rdi -fcall-saved-rsi -fcall-saved-rdx -fcall-saved-rcx
-fcall-saved-r8 -fcall-saved-r9 -fcall-saved-r10 -fcall-saved-r11
but that of course expects that all the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624
--- Comment #12 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #11)
> __sw_hweight32 changes only retval (rax) and parameter (rdi).
... and rdi is stored to and restored from stack.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624
--- Comment #11 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> If you are calling a function (__sw_hweight32) without letting gcc know you
> do that, are you sure that function call does not modify any registers other
> than "
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
