--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-28 10:33
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-28 10:33
---
Subject: Bug 44903
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 28 10:32:54 2010
New Revision: 162624
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162624
Log:
2010-07-28 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #20 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-28
00:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c
execution test
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Please check whether the attached patch fixes the testcase this
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-26 12:21
---
One of the issues is
/* For a MEM rtx, the alignment in bits. We can use the alignment of the
mode as a default when STRICT_ALIGNMENT, but not if not. */
#define MEM_ALIGN(RTX)
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-26 12:45
---
Created an attachment (id=21314)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21314action=view)
patch
Please check whether the attached patch fixes the testcase this bug is about.
--
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-26 12:45
---
Mine again (only for restoring the pre-MEM_REF behavior).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-23 12:14
---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 13:53
---
Does
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c (revision 162140)
+++ expr.c (working copy)
@@ -8778,6 +8778,11 @@ expand_expr_real_1 (tree exp, rtx
--- Comment #14 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-07-13 17:40 ---
Also fails on sparc64-linux, with SIGBUS due to misaligned load in bar().
On armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi it triggers an alignment exception, which the
Linux kernel may emulate/fixup (there's a kernel tunable for
--- Comment #15 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 00:18
---
We get a segv here:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0017686c in emit_block_move_hints (x=0x7afb3610, y=0x7afb36f0,
size=0x7af312d8, method=1074100336, expected_align=0,
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 10:47 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c
execution test
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I get for all memory accesses an alignment of
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-11
15:17 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c
execution test
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 16:23 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c
execution test
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc
--- Comment #8 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 16:33 ---
With 4.5, the block move was emitted as follows:
Breakpoint 2, emit_block_move_hints (x=0x7afcb550, y=0x7afcb630,
size=0x7af312d8, method=BLOCK_OP_NORMAL, expected_align=64,
expected_size=-1) at
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-11
16:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test
The above testcase worked? Not the pr35258.c, but the one I gave, with
the int aligned(1)? The difference on the 4.5 branch is that
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 22:04
---
(In reply to comment #9)
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test
The above testcase worked? Not the pr35258.c, but the one I gave, with
the int aligned(1)? The difference on
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-11
22:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test
The above testcase doesn't work with 4.5 and I doubt it ever worked on
PA. The pointer passed to foo is used as is. It's only the
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 22:37
---
(In reply to comment #11)
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test
The above testcase doesn't work with 4.5 and I doubt it ever worked on
PA. The pointer passed to foo is used
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 21:29 ---
I get for all memory accesses an alignment of 8 at expansion time which looks
correct (on i?86). Please debug this a bit, set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos
looks conservative enough.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-10
23:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c
execution test
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I get for all memory accesses an alignment of 8 at expansion time
20 matches
Mail list logo
