https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.4 |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||breiten at lexmark dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.3 |7.4
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
--- Comment #12 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Unfortunately that patch caused a regression (nothing to do with the compiler
really, just the way powerpc linux uses some libgcc functions), and I've done
some more investigation. The new finding is that se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
--- Comment #11 from Arnd Bergmann ---
The second version of my workaround (build with 'gcc -Os' on gcc-7.1+) was
merged into mainline linux: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10143607/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
--- Comment #10 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I sent a (rather crude) workaround to the kernel mailing list now, mainly to
get the crypto maintainers involved in this as well. I also did further testing
and found that in the entire kernel, this is the o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42921
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42921&action=edit
gcc7-pr83356.patch
Untested patch for the second sanopt. This doesn't change anything on this
testcase though,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll try it tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
--- Comment #5 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> That said, can't see an easy workaround but to change the source and/or
> not use -fsanitize= and expect decent code quality.
I don't see a good way to modify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
(I believe they eventually abort (), right?) so we can't
Well, not abort, either runtime error message + die, or runtime error message +
continue, or __builtin_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Well, there's nothing we can do here if PRE decides to do more now (the
possible effect of the fix). We are simply finding a _lot_ more opportunities
to hoist/PRE stuff (all sanitizer stuff...). And PRE ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
18 matches
Mail list logo
