https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95112
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kobets ---
Yes, that it.
I am not sure, that CF must be enabled by default, at your discretion.
Thank you.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: akobets at mail dot ru
Target Milestone: ---
gcc version 9.3.0 (Ubuntu 9.3.0-10ubuntu1)
Test file:
===
void test()
{
}
===
Buld:
i686-linux-gnu-gcc -c -fno-PIC -mno-mmx -mno-sse -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92425
Alexander Kobets changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92425
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kobets ---
Ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92425
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kobets ---
I think eax is 32-bit register. May be I do not understand, then I re-check the
result of that operation.
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: akobets at mail dot ru
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 47200
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47200&action=edit
Assembly output
=== prog.cpp ===
unsign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #18 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-05
18:36:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-05
12:51:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> A quick question here. Why not use a .s file instead?
Quick answer. CC optimizes code better, especialy for instruction sheduling.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56209
Bug #: 56209
Summary: Function __attribute__((interrupt)),
__attribute__((naked)) is needed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #16 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
22:02:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> But no error is printed when I use -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4 on 64-bit CPU.
> Only when defined 0, then printed:
> error: -mpreferred-stack-b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
21:56:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Not fake, but the default and smallest value, i.e. for x86_64 ABI we don't
> allow lowering the value to smaller than ABI required alignments. O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
13:48:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> That is completely irrelevant. The noreturn function is usually defined in
> some other CU, so you don't know what compiler flags it will be com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
12:39:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> You're wrong. That is to maintain the ABI, which for x86_64 says that the
> stack is 16-byte aligned. Consider e.g. the noreturn function using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
Alexander Kobets changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolutio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Kobets 2013-01-31
22:30:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Do you have alternative solution or proposals to remove unwanted code?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kobets 2013-01-31
22:13:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Please do not mark bug as duplicate of another bug that was not resolveed. Give
any chance to anybody to fix it. Even if you wontfix, it is do not me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kobets 2013-01-31
20:55:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This is I use --no-exceptions and count other optimize parameters and
absolutely do not intent any debug services or exceptions. I control my code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kobets 2013-01-31
17:26:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 29319
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29319
Result code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
Bug #: 56165
Summary: Missed optimization for 'noreturn' functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56114
Alexander Kobets changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #10 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56114
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kobets 2013-01-26
16:54:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Well, following patch won't break then:
Yes, thank you.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56114
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kobets 2013-01-26
14:30:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Proposed patch:
It is correcting this code, but break another. For example (-mcmodel=large):
--cut here--
long* p1;
long foo2 (void)
{
p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56114
Alexander Kobets changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akobets at mail dot ru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56114
Bug #: 56114
Summary: x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc generate wrong asm instruction
MOVABS for intel syntax
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
S
24 matches
Mail list logo
