https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #18 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #17)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> > This testcase fails on aarch64 when SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is true.
>
> hmm, yes.
>
> there are targets that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> This testcase fails on aarch64 when SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is true.
hmm, yes.
there are targets that define SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS=1, but
they also define STRI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski ---
This testcase fails on aarch64 when SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is true.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #15 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye
Backport mainline strict-volatile-bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
Joey Ye changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #13 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:59:24 2013
New Revision: 205897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Bernd Edlinger
Sandra Loosemore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #12 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Dec 11 16:50:05 2013
New Revision: 205896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205896&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-11 Sandra Loosemore
PR middle-end/23623
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #11 from Sandra Loosemore ---
Updated patch series:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02057.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02058.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02059.html
Unfortunately
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
incredibly...
gcc 4.3.7 was the last version that did only write 5 bytes in foo().
starting with gcc 4.4 all variants read/write 8 bytes in foo().
that applies only to the arm code.
the x86 code does not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
1. you should never touch memory that lies outside the struct.
2. if you have to generate multiple accesses you should generate
code as if "volatile" was not used at all.
3. if -mno-unaligned-access is give
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #8 from Sandra Loosemore ---
Thanks for giving it a try. Do you think that in a case such as this where a
single access of the appropriate size cannot be generated due to the struct
having unaligned fields we should generate the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
aehmm sorry, the object "g" from above code is actually from PR#48784
#pragma pack(1)
volatile struct S0 {
signed a : 7;
unsigned b : 28;
} g = {0,-1};
=> sizeof(g) = 5
but the code from this example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #5 from Sandra Loosemore ---
Patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00750.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
Sandra Loosemore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot com
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #3 from Joey Ye 2013-04-18 08:46:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> -fstrict-volatile-bitfields implementation is bogus, as I repeatedly said
> it should now piggy-back on DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE. Note that
> in your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #1 from Joey Ye 2013-04-18 08:12:50 UTC ---
Quoted from
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.0/gcc/Code-Gen-Options.html#Code-Gen-Options:
-fstrict-volatile-bitfields
If the target requires strict alignment, and honoring
19 matches
Mail list logo
