[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2017-01-06 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2017-01-06 Thread law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Fri Jan 6 21:21:02 2017 New Revision: 244184 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244184=gcc=rev Log: 2017-01-06 Mikael Pettersson PR target/57583

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2017-01-06 Thread mikpelinux at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #14 from Mikael Pettersson --- Patch submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg00419.html

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2017-01-06 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #12) > Thanks for testing, I'll submit it for gcc-7 shortly. Ah, awesome, thanks! Would also be cool to have this backported to the gcc-6 branch if

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2017-01-06 Thread mikpelinux at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #12 from Mikael Pettersson --- Thanks for testing, I'll submit it for gcc-7 shortly.

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2017-01-06 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Ok, the patch does indeed work. Tested by compiling the offending source code file in mednafen which currently fails to build from source [1]: Without "-mlong-jump-table-offsets", I get:

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2017-01-04 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #9) > Sounds good. I can give it a try in the following days or weeks and see if I > can get a C code with such large switch statements

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2017-01-02 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #8) > Created attachment 40362 [details] > patch adding -mlong-jump-table-offsets option for m68k > > This is the crude patch I mentioned in an older

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2016-12-18 Thread mikpelinux at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #8 from Mikael Pettersson --- Created attachment 40362 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40362=edit patch adding -mlong-jump-table-offsets option for m68k This is the crude patch I mentioned in an older comment,

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2016-12-12 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Hi! Are there any news on this issue? We're seeing this problem in both LibreOffice [1] (yes, *that* LibreOffice) and Mednafen [2]. Adrian > [1] >

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2013-06-12 Thread mikpe at it dot uu.se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se --- It's not too difficult to make the m68k backend use 32-bit offsets in its jump tables (adjust CASE_VECTOR_MODE, ASM_OUTPUT_ADDR_DIFF_ELT, ASM_RETURN_CASE_JUMP, drop the sign-extend

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2013-06-12 Thread hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #3) It's not too difficult to make the m68k backend use 32-bit offsets in its jump tables (adjust CASE_VECTOR_MODE,

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2013-06-12 Thread sch...@linux-m68k.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org --- The assembler already handles jump targets that are too far away (via the BROKEN_DOT_WORD hack), this issue is about growing the table itself too large so that the overflow table is not

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2013-06-12 Thread hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #5) The assembler already handles jump targets that are too far away (via the BROKEN_DOT_WORD hack), this issue is about growing the table

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2013-06-11 Thread sch...@linux-m68k.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org --- Apparently GAS has lost its BROKEN_DOT_WORD handing.

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

2013-06-11 Thread mikpe at it dot uu.se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se --- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15602 is the corresponding binutils/gas bug.