On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 22/01/2019 15:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 02:43:38PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >>PR target/88469
> >>* profile-count.h (profile_count): Add dummy file with 64-bit alignment
> >>on arm-base
On 22/01/2019 15:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 02:43:38PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> PR target/88469
>> * profile-count.h (profile_count): Add dummy file with 64-bit alignment
>> on arm-based systems using gcc-6/7/8.
>>
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/profi
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 02:43:38PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> PR target/88469
> * profile-count.h (profile_count): Add dummy file with 64-bit alignment
> on arm-based systems using gcc-6/7/8.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/profile-count.h b/gcc/profile-count.h
> index c83fa3
On 22/01/2019 15:20, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>
>> This patch, for gcc 8/9 is a mitigation patch for PR target/88469 where
>> gcc-6/7/8 miscompile a structure whose alignment is dominated by a
>> 64-bit bitfield member. Since the PCS rules for s
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> This patch, for gcc 8/9 is a mitigation patch for PR target/88469 where
> gcc-6/7/8 miscompile a structure whose alignment is dominated by a
> 64-bit bitfield member. Since the PCS rules for such a type must ignore
> any overalignment of the
This patch, for gcc 8/9 is a mitigation patch for PR target/88469 where
gcc-6/7/8 miscompile a structure whose alignment is dominated by a
64-bit bitfield member. Since the PCS rules for such a type must ignore
any overalignment of the base type we cannot address this by simply
adding a larger ali
