http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||domen at cba dot si
--- Comment #11 fro
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-17 15:45 ---
Confirmed. Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedT
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-20 15:54 ---
Subject: Bug 45704
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 20 15:54:03 2010
New Revision: 164439
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164439
Log:
2010-09-20 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/45704
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 10:47 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 10:47 ---
Subject: Bug 45704
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 21 10:47:28 2010
New Revision: 164475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=164475
Log:
2010-09-21 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/45704
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #5 from Atsushi Nemoto 2010-09-27
15:48:32 UTC ---
Here is a similar test case with "packed" attribute, which still produces bad
result.
Four load-byte instructions are generated instead of one load-word.
struct st {
int ptr;
} _
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-27 15:54:06 UTC ---
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, anemo at mba dot ocn.ne.jp wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
>
> --- Comment #5 from Atsushi Nemoto 2010-09-27
> 15:48:32 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #7 from Atsushi Nemoto 2010-09-28
15:34:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> It should be as this is likely a problem with unaligned access
> support. I think you can't generally expect unaligned volatile
> accesses to work (on ia64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #8 from Atsushi Nemoto 2010-09-30
13:59:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The PR 42956 bugzilla shows same fix was applied to both 4.5.0 and 4.4.4,
> but they behave differently on this test case.
>
> Comparing patches for 4.4 br
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-09-30 14:14:13 UTC ---
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, anemo at mba dot ocn.ne.jp wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
>
> --- Comment #8 from Atsushi Nemoto 2010-09-30
> 13:59:34 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45704
--- Comment #10 from Atsushi Nemoto 2010-10-01
12:48:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> > Is that "two more changes" are not bugfix but improvement?
>
> Yes.
I see, thank you for clarification.
11 matches
Mail list logo
