From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 22 01:48:54 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE868D8D for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 01:48:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.95.76.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "troutmask.apl.washington.edu", Issuer "troutmask.apl.washington.edu" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB8F1636 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 01:48:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost.apl.washington.edu [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s8M1msNA004484 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 21 Sep 2014 18:48:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id s8M1mshI004483; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 18:48:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 18:48:54 -0700 From: Steve Kargl To: Rui Paulo Subject: Re: Is this a compiler bug? Message-ID: <20140922014853.GA4469@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20140922011946.GA4317@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <670269FD-F75F-4044-8F3C-0260F58A70E2@me.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <670269FD-F75F-4044-8F3C-0260F58A70E2@me.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 01:48:55 -0000 On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 06:38:48PM -0700, Rui Paulo wrote: > On Sep 21, 2014, at 18:19, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > #include > > #include > > > > int > > main(void) > > { > > uint16_t i; > > i = 0x3ff0+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ff1+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ff2+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ff3+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ff4+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ff4+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ff6+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ff7+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ff8+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ff9+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ffa+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ffb+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ffc+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ffd+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3ffe+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > i = 0x3fff+63; printf("%x\n", i); > > return 0; > > } > > Looks like it. Please file a bug report with LLVM. > Unfortunately, llvm requires an account to report bugs. -- Steve