[Bug c/39373] New: attribute ((aligned)) for stack variables is ignored without warning

2009-03-04 Thread balrogg at gmail dot com
y: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: balrogg at gmail dot com GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39373

[Bug c/39375] New: asm with a "=X" output overwrites the output

2009-03-04 Thread balrogg at gmail dot com
the array element. -- Summary: asm with a "=X" output overwrites the output Product: gcc Version: 4.3.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu

[Bug c/39375] asm with a "=X" output overwrites the output

2009-03-04 Thread balrogg at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from balrogg at gmail dot com 2009-03-05 02:55 --- (In reply to comment #0) > Similarly for "=X" but not "=m" or "=r". Rather, similarly for "=g". -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39375

[Bug c/39373] attribute ((aligned)) for stack variables is ignored without warning

2009-03-04 Thread balrogg at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from balrogg at gmail dot com 2009-03-05 07:32 --- Yes! I haven't executed it but correct assembly seems to be emitted for x86. Marking INVALID. -- balrogg at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |

[Bug c/39375] asm with a "=X" output overwrites the output

2009-03-06 Thread balrogg at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from balrogg at gmail dot com 2009-03-06 10:34 --- (In reply to comment #2) > You need to use a "memory" clobber instead. "=X" (params[1]) says to GCC > that the asm operand 0 should be stored to params[1], which it does > (it allocate

[Bug c/39375] asm with a "=X" output overwrites the output

2009-03-16 Thread balrogg at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from balrogg at gmail dot com 2009-03-16 16:53 --- Reopening because int params; __asm__ ("xxx" : "=X" (params)); and int params[1]; __asm__ ("xxx" : "=X" (params[0])); still produce different output in a way that is undocumented.

[Bug c/10676] Using unnamed fields in initializers

2010-05-14 Thread balrogg at gmail dot com
--- Comment #18 from balrogg at gmail dot com 2010-05-15 03:23 --- (In reply to comment #11) > An example program that shows 3 different methods. Only one works (see > comment) > .c = 3, //Will not work > {.c = 3}, //works > {.c= 2}, //Does not work For sake o