--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-31
14:29 ---
Subject: Bug 23539
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-31 14:28:46
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-31 15:07
---
Patch applied to mainline. Backported to 3.4 and 4.0 branches.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-27
15:44 ---
Subject: Bug 23539
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-27 15:44:28
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-27
15:46 ---
Subject: Bug 23539
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-27 15:46:45
Modified files:
gcc:
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-26 23:55
---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-26 23:55
---
rs6000.c:expand_block_move() is losing the alignment because of a typo/thinko in
the decision tree.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From mcvick_e at iname dot com 2005-08-24 15:44
---
Here is a short program that duplicates the problem.
-- test.cc
struct foo {
char bar1;
char bar2;
char bar3;
};
class bar2 {
private:
static foo
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23539
--- Additional Comments From mcvick_e at iname dot com 2005-08-23 21:44
---
I should also mention that the target processor for this is the 603, not 603e
or otherwise. Even compiling with the -mtune=603 and -mcpu=603 gives the same
output. And those old processors do not handle
--- Additional Comments From mcvick_e at iname dot com 2005-08-23 22:24
---
The data access exception is incorrect in this sense. The software developer
had updated the status of this issue and states that this causes a Machine
Check exception to occur on our current hardware.
The
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
22:30 ---
GCC assumes you have unaligned access.
Use -mstrict-align if you want to assume unaligned access does not work.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23539
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23
23:35 ---
Re. comment #3, you can find a whole load of options to control various things
about gcc's powerpc backend in the manual. For example in the manual for GCC
4.0.1, you can give this page a look:
--- Additional Comments From mcvick_e at iname dot com 2005-08-23 23:47
---
Our Hardware engineers came back to us informing us as to why this _may_ be an
issue. The hardware has a memory bus arbiter ASIC that does not handle mis-
aligned references for 2-byte accesses ending on 1 or
--- Additional Comments From mcvick_e at iname dot com 2005-08-24 00:20
---
Unfortunately this still appears to be some sort of bug. The solution given
with the -mstrict-align worked for the test case, but in the specific case
here, still fails. Attached is the output of the link
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-24
00:27 ---
Of course not having the source does not help.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23539
--- Additional Comments From mcvick_e at iname dot com 2005-08-24 02:57
---
I understand this frustration. The source code is proprietary material so I
cannot post it. However we are working on developing a sample case to
demonstrate what is happening.
--
16 matches
Mail list logo
