* [Bug c/45207] The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s
2010-08-06 7:15 [Bug c/45207] New: The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
@ 2010-08-06 7:20 ` fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-06 7:52 ` [Bug target/45207] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com @ 2010-08-06 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com 2010-08-06 07:20 -------
Created an attachment (id=21421)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21421&action=view)
Script to build arm-elf toolchain
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45207
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/45207] The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s
2010-08-06 7:15 [Bug c/45207] New: The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-06 7:20 ` [Bug c/45207] " fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
@ 2010-08-06 7:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-06 8:37 ` [Bug c/45207] " fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-08-06 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-06 07:52 -------
Have you tried compiling with -fno-strict-aliasing ?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|c |target
Keywords| |wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45207
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/45207] The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s
2010-08-06 7:15 [Bug c/45207] New: The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-06 7:20 ` [Bug c/45207] " fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-06 7:52 ` [Bug target/45207] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-08-06 8:37 ` fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-06 9:10 ` fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com @ 2010-08-06 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com 2010-08-06 08:36 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Have you tried compiling with -fno-strict-aliasing ?
I've tried it now, and it made no difference I'm afraid.
The code got slightly bigger, but behavior is the same as previously.
/Fredrik
--
fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fredrik dot hederstierna at
| |securitas-direct dot com
Component|target |c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45207
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/45207] The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s
2010-08-06 7:15 [Bug c/45207] New: The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-08-06 8:37 ` [Bug c/45207] " fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
@ 2010-08-06 9:10 ` fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-06 9:13 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com @ 2010-08-06 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com 2010-08-06 09:09 -------
Hm, I now tried to disable all possible optimization flags, but still "-Os"
does not work, but "-O2" still works!
Does the "-Os" option do anything more that is not controllable from command
line options/flags?
# Disable O1 flags
CFLAGS += -fno-auto-inc-dec
CFLAGS += -fno-cprop-registers
CFLAGS += -fno-dce
CFLAGS += -fno-defer-pop
CFLAGS += -fno-delayed-branch
CFLAGS += -fno-dse
CFLAGS += -fno-guess-branch-probability
CFLAGS += -fno-if-conversion2
CFLAGS += -fno-if-conversion
CFLAGS += -fno-ipa-pure-const
CFLAGS += -fno-ipa-reference
CFLAGS += -fno-merge-constants
CFLAGS += -fno-split-wide-types
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-builtin-call-dce
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-ccp
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-ch
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-copyrename
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-dce
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-dominator-opts
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-dse
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-forwprop
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-fre
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-phiprop
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-sra
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-pta
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-ter
CFLAGS += -fno-unit-at-a-time
# Disable O2 flags
CFLAGS += -fno-thread-jumps
CFLAGS += -fno-align-functions -fno-align-jumps
CFLAGS += -fno-align-loops -fno-align-labels
CFLAGS += -fno-caller-saves
CFLAGS += -fno-crossjumping
CFLAGS += -fno-cse-follow-jumps -fno-cse-skip-blocks
CFLAGS += -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks
CFLAGS += -fno-expensive-optimizations
CFLAGS += -fno-gcse -fno-gcse-lm
CFLAGS += -fno-inline-small-functions
CFLAGS += -fno-indirect-inlining
CFLAGS += -fno-ipa-sra
CFLAGS += -fno-optimize-sibling-calls
CFLAGS += -fno-peephole2
CFLAGS += -fno-regmove
CFLAGS += -fno-reorder-blocks -fno-reorder-functions
CFLAGS += -fno-rerun-cse-after-loop
CFLAGS += -fno-sched-interblock -fno-sched-spec
CFLAGS += -fno-schedule-insns -fno-schedule-insns2
CFLAGS += -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-strict-overflow
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-switch-conversion
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-pre
CFLAGS += -fno-tree-vrp
# Disable flags for debugging purposes
CFLAGS += -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-web
The code size increased alot when disabling all this options.
/Fredrik
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45207
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/45207] The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s
2010-08-06 7:15 [Bug c/45207] New: The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-08-06 9:10 ` fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
@ 2010-08-06 9:13 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-08-06 12:06 ` fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-08-06 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-06 09:13 -------
If you don't give us a testcase we can't verify / see what's going wrong here.
Please report bugs as described here. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ .
Thanks,
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45207
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/45207] The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s
2010-08-06 7:15 [Bug c/45207] New: The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-08-06 9:13 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-08-06 12:06 ` fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
2010-08-06 19:36 ` siarhei dot siamashka at gmail dot com
2010-08-09 7:55 ` fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com @ 2010-08-06 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com 2010-08-06 12:06 -------
Yes you are right, unfortunately I just had problems to break out any small
test case from our sources.
I think I found out what is the source of the problems.
The "-Os" disable alignment of functions. In some case I try to force alignment
void __attribute__((aligned(4))) _irq_off(void);
since we have some thumb->arm trampoline functions to modify cpu-flags.
I guess somehow some functions got thumb-aligned, but I try to investigate this
further.
/Fredrik
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45207
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/45207] The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s
2010-08-06 7:15 [Bug c/45207] New: The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-08-06 12:06 ` fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
@ 2010-08-06 19:36 ` siarhei dot siamashka at gmail dot com
2010-08-09 7:55 ` fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: siarhei dot siamashka at gmail dot com @ 2010-08-06 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from siarhei dot siamashka at gmail dot com 2010-08-06 19:36 -------
Do you have any packed structs? I wonder if the problem could be somehow
related to PR45070. But it's hard to say anything until you narrow down the
problem to a smaller testcase.
--
siarhei dot siamashka at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |siarhei dot siamashka at
| |gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45207
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/45207] The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s
2010-08-06 7:15 [Bug c/45207] New: The -Os flag generates wrong code for ARM966e-s fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-08-06 19:36 ` siarhei dot siamashka at gmail dot com
@ 2010-08-09 7:55 ` fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com @ 2010-08-09 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com 2010-08-09 07:55 -------
I think I found what was the problem, the flags
-mthumb -mcpu=arm966e-s -Os -falign-functions=4
Did not 32-bit-align my thumb->arm trampoline function.
I dont know if -Os win over -falign-functions flag in this case.
Anyway, my function ended up on a 16-bit aligned address and that caused an
abort.
/Fredrik
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45207
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread