public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx
@ 2024-01-31 20:32 zsojka at seznam dot cz
2024-01-31 23:04 ` [Bug target/113689] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 more replies)
0 siblings, 12 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: zsojka at seznam dot cz @ 2024-01-31 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
Bug ID: 113689
Summary: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2
-fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zsojka at seznam dot cz
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Created attachment 57270
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57270&action=edit
reduced testcase
Output:
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx testcase.c
$ ./a.out
Aborted
"b" (and then "x") seems to be garbage.
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-latest-amd64/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/repo/gcc-trunk/binary-trunk-r14-8665-20240131161256-g3fed1609f61-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/14.0.1/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /repo/gcc-trunk//configure --enable-languages=c,c++
--enable-valgrind-annotations --disable-nls --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df,extra
--disable-bootstrap --with-cloog --with-ppl --with-isl
--build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r14-8665-20240131161256-g3fed1609f61-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 14.0.1 20240131 (experimental) (GCC)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
@ 2024-01-31 23:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-01 12:27 ` [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-31 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed| |2024-01-31
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed. s/511/(256-63)/ is the min to reproduce this issue. Basically just
enough to auto-vectorize.
I get the feeling that mcount causes alignment differences ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
2024-01-31 23:04 ` [Bug target/113689] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-01 12:27 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-01 12:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-01 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |uros at gcc dot gnu.org
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|--- |11.5
Summary|wrong code with unused |[11/12/13/14 Regression]
|_BitInt() division with -O2 |wrong code with -fprofile
|-fprofile -mcmodel=large |-mcmodel=large when needing
|-mavx |drap register since
| |r11-6548
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Seems like a backend bug to me, collision between function profiler after
prologue and drap.
I see
foo:
leaq 8(%rsp), %r10
andq $-32, %rsp
pushq -8(%r10)
pushq %rbp
movq %rsp, %rbp
pushq %r14
pushq %r13
pushq %r12
pushq %r10
pushq %rbx
subq $200, %rsp
1: movabsq $mcount, %r10
call *%r10
xorl %eax, %eax
xorl %edx, %edx
movl $-511, %r9d
addb $-1, %dl
movq %rax, %rdx
sbbq (%r10), %rdx
This function is stack_realign_drap, find_drap_reg returns R10_REG and so
ix86_get_drap_rtx uses %r10 as drap register. Later on pro_and_epilogue
initializes
the drap register in the prologue. And, final.cc when seeing
NOTE_INSN_PROLOGUE_END emits the late FUNCTION_PROFILER, which seems to have
clobbering of %r10 (and/or %r11) hardcoded in it, so it overwrites the drap
value.
One doesn't need _BitInt to reproduce:
/* { dg-do run { target lp64 } } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large" } */
__attribute__((noipa)) void
bar (char *x, char *y, int *z)
{
x[0] = 42;
y[0] = 42;
if (z[0] != 16)
__builtin_abort ();
}
__attribute__((noipa)) void
foo (int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, int h, int z)
{
typedef char B[32];
B b __attribute__((aligned (32)));
bar (&b[0], __builtin_alloca (z), &z);
}
int
main ()
{
foo (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 16);
}
Started with r11-6548-g1b885264a48dcd71b7aeb26c0abeb91246724897
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
2024-01-31 23:04 ` [Bug target/113689] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-01 12:27 ` [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-01 12:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-01 18:23 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-01 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Anyway, if flag_fentry == 0, it doesn't seem to be safe to clobber any
registers to me,
sure, the code could test if %r10 or %r11 are ever live in the current function
(if that information is up to date at that point, or remember it during
prologue generation when we know we need function profiler with flag_fentry ==
0), but if they are live, I think it needs to do something different.
Or, can it use say %r12 instead of %r10 if %r10 is drap?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-01 12:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-01 18:23 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2024-02-05 19:08 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2024-02-01 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
A patch is at
https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/list/?series=30482
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-01 18:23 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2024-02-05 19:08 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-05 19:09 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-05 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
--- Comment #5 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu <hjl@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51f8ac3341078303e81e72d9013698a31c5ddd29
commit r14-8808-g51f8ac3341078303e81e72d9013698a31c5ddd29
Author: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Feb 1 08:02:27 2024 -0800
x86-64: Find a scratch register for large model profiling
2 scratch registers, %r10 and %r11, are available at function entry for
large model profiling. But %r10 may be used by stack realignment and we
can't use %r10 in this case. Add x86_64_select_profile_regnum to find
a caller-saved register which isn't live or a callee-saved register
which has been saved on stack in the prologue at entry for large model
profiling and sorry if we can't find one.
gcc/
PR target/113689
* config/i386/i386.cc (x86_64_select_profile_regnum): New.
(x86_function_profiler): Call x86_64_select_profile_regnum to
get a scratch register for large model profiling.
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/113689
* gcc.target/i386/pr113689-1.c: New file.
* gcc.target/i386/pr113689-2.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/i386/pr113689-3.c: Likewise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-05 19:08 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-05 19:09 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2024-02-06 18:30 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2024-02-05 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
Fixed for GCC 14 so far.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-05 19:09 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2024-02-06 18:30 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 18:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-06 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This patch broke Solaris/x86 (i386-pc-solaris2.11) bootstrap:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc: In function 'void
x86_function_profiler(std::FILE*, int)':
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:22838:40: error: array
subscript -1 is below array bounds of 'const char* const [92]'
[-Werror=array-bounds=]
22838 | reg = hi_reg_name[scratch];
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^c-include=/vol/gcc/include
/vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:138:26: note: while
referencing 'hi_reg_name'
--with-target-bdw-gc-lib=/vol/gcc/lib,amd64=/vo 138 | static const char *const
hi_reg_name[] = HI_REGISTER_NAMES;
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-06 18:30 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-06 18:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 18:42 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-06 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #7)
> This patch broke Solaris/x86 (i386-pc-solaris2.11) bootstrap:
>
> /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc: In function 'void
> x86_function_profiler(std::FILE*, int)':
> /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:22838:40: error: array
> subscript -1 is below array bounds of 'const char* const [92]'
> [-Werror=array-bounds=]
> 22838 | reg = hi_reg_name[scratch];
> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^c-include=/vol/gcc/include
> /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc:138:26: note: while
> referencing 'hi_reg_name'
> --with-target-bdw-gc-lib=/vol/gcc/lib,amd64=/vo 138 | static const char
> *const hi_reg_name[] = HI_REGISTER_NAMES;
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~
Guess for the case where we issue sorry we shouldn't return INVALID_REGNUM, but
R10_REG or any other, we acknowledged we aren't emitting correct assembly
already.
And, as I wrote earlier, I think if we did similar discovery at
pro_and_epilogue time and find we otherwise wouldn't have any registers for it
and would sorry at final time, it might be better to just pick some call used
register and forcibly save it even when it isn't strictly needed. Then it
wouldn't sorry at final time anymore.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-06 18:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-06 18:42 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2024-02-06 18:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2024-02-06 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
Like this?
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
index f02c6c02ac6..ed0b0e19985 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
@@ -22785,10 +22785,10 @@ x86_64_select_profile_regnum (bool r11_ok
ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
&& !REGNO_REG_SET_P (reg_live, i))))
return i;
- sorry ("no register available for profiling %<-mcmodel=large%s%>",
+ sorry ("no register available for profiling %<-mcmodel=large%s%>, use r10",
ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE_PIC ? " -fPIC" : "");
- return INVALID_REGNUM;
+ return R10_REG;
}
/* Output assembler code to FILE to increment profiler label # LABELNO
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-06 18:42 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2024-02-06 18:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 18:58 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2024-02-06 19:03 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-06 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> Like this?
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> index f02c6c02ac6..ed0b0e19985 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> @@ -22785,10 +22785,10 @@ x86_64_select_profile_regnum (bool r11_ok
> ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
> && !REGNO_REG_SET_P (reg_live, i))))
> return i;
>
> - sorry ("no register available for profiling %<-mcmodel=large%s%>",
> + sorry ("no register available for profiling %<-mcmodel=large%s%>, use
> r10",
> ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE_PIC ? " -fPIC" : "");
>
> - return INVALID_REGNUM;
> + return R10_REG;
> }
>
> /* Output assembler code to FILE to increment profiler label # LABELNO
Just the second hunk. I think with sorry call the compilation fails, so what
you actually emit doesn't matter (one can see it with -pipe, sure).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-06 18:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-06 18:58 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2024-02-06 19:03 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2024-02-06 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
>
> Just the second hunk. I think with sorry call the compilation fails, so what
> you actually emit doesn't matter (one can see it with -pipe, sure).
Done.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-06 18:58 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2024-02-06 19:03 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-02-06 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113689
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu <hjl@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2a060820c24724bb48ee006d257c449e4d94b72
commit r14-8831-gf2a060820c24724bb48ee006d257c449e4d94b72
Author: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Feb 6 10:57:24 2024 -0800
x86-64: Return 10_REG if there is no scratch register
If we can't find a scratch register for large model profiling, return
R10_REG.
PR target/113689
* config/i386/i386.cc (x86_64_select_profile_regnum): Return
R10_REG after sorry.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-02-06 19:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-01-31 20:32 [Bug target/113689] New: wrong code with unused _BitInt() division with -O2 -fprofile -mcmodel=large -mavx zsojka at seznam dot cz
2024-01-31 23:04 ` [Bug target/113689] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-01 12:27 ` [Bug target/113689] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code with -fprofile -mcmodel=large when needing drap register since r11-6548 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-01 12:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-01 18:23 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2024-02-05 19:08 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-05 19:09 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2024-02-06 18:30 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 18:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 18:42 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2024-02-06 18:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 18:58 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2024-02-06 19:03 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).