On 30 March 2016 at 14:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux following
> backports from trunk and committed them to gcc-5-branch.
>
Hi,
I've noticed that r234548 shows regressions on aarch64:
PASS->FAILL:
gcc.target/aarch64/scalar_shift_1.
On 31/03/16 09:48, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30 March 2016 at 14:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I've bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux following
backports from trunk and committed them to gcc-5-branch.
Hi,
I've noticed that r234548 shows regressions on aarch64:
PASS->FAILL
Hi,
Please find attached the patch that fixes the PR31096.
Should the optimization be extended to addition and other
operations as well?
Please review the patch and let me know if its okay?
Regression tested on X86_64.
Thanks,
Naveen
2016-03-31 Naveen H.S
* match.pd (cmp (mult:cs @
Hi,
Please find attached the patch that fixes the tree optimization 23471.
Please review the patch and let me know if its okay?
Regression tested on X86_64.
Thanks,
Naveen
2016-03-31 Naveen H.S
* fold-const.c (tree_binary_nonnegative_warnv_p) : Handle the case
a * a; where
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:53:28AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 31/03/16 09:48, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >On 30 March 2016 at 14:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>Hi!
> >>
> >>I've bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux following
> >>backports from trunk and committed them to gcc
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
Please find attached the patch that fixes the tree optimization 23471.
Please review the patch and let me know if its okay?
Regression tested on X86_64.
Thanks,
Naveen
2016-03-31 Naveen H.S
* fold-const.c (tree_binary_nonnegative_wa
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached the patch that fixes the PR31096.
Should the optimization be extended to addition and other
operations as well?
Please review the patch and let me know if its okay?
Regression tested on X86_64.
Thanks,
Naveen
2016-03-
On 31/03/16 09:55, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote:
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "addl" } } */
addl is not the mnemonic for add on all architectures
Ramana
On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 08:51 +0100, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The copyright notices are wrong (or at least incomplete).
> > Hi, what is wrong then, copyright years and/or the text?
> Both. The copyright year should include 2016 and the text should be
> copyright FSF, not AdaCore.
Atta
On 30 March 2016 at 18:01, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The patch for PR69614 has been backported to gcc-5 branch:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
>
> Committed as rev. 234577.
>
Hi,
As I've already reported:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00773.html
the new
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:18:27AM -0500, Evandro Menezes wrote:
>Add scalar 0.0 to the aarch64_simd_reg_or_zero predicate.
>
>2016-03-30 Evandro Menezes
>
> * gcc/config/aarch64/predicates.md
> (aarch64_simd_reg_or_zero predicate): Add the "const_double"
>constrain
>> Er, the code just below your patch should already handle this case, no?
Hi,
Thanks for the review and your comments on the patch.
The code below seems to handle this case for O2 or higher optimization.
However, somehow its not being handled with O1 and hence has this
implemented for better o
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen
wrote:
>>> Er, the code just below your patch should already handle this case, no?
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the review and your comments on the patch.
>
> The code below seems to handle this case for O2 or higher optimization.
>
> However, someh
>> With -O1 there is -fno-strict-overflow in effect which is not
>> TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED.
Thanks for the details. The below code has the following condition
and hence not working for O1.
if (FLOAT_TYPE_P (type) || TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (type))
Then PR23471 is fixed with the current sources.
Hi!
Committed to gomp-4_0-branch in r234610:
commit e252cf1daa16c5857e4358c214937c6fb0452b5f
Merge: 8fff8ae 6846439
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu Mar 31 08:21:26 2016 +
svn merge -r 234323:234469 svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen
wrote:
>>> With -O1 there is -fno-strict-overflow in effect which is not
>>> TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED.
>
> Thanks for the details. The below code has the following condition
> and hence not working for O1.
> if (FLOAT_TYPE_P (type) || TYPE_OVER
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-03-23 Martin Liska
PR hsa/70391
* hsa-gen.c (hsa_function_representation::update_cfg): New
function.
(convert_addr_to_flat_segment): Likewise.
(gen_hsa_memory_set): New alignment argument.
(gen_hsa_ctor_assignment): Likewise.
Hello.
Following small series implements missing support for alignment
of HSA symbols. So far we were very optimistic about the alignment.
The first patch adds tracking of alignment of HSA symbols and
takes minimum every time we do generation of memory copy instruction.
The second part handles str
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-03-23 Martin Liska
PR hsa/70391
* hsa-brig.c (emit_directive_variable): Emit alignment
according to hsa_symbol::m_align.
* hsa-dump.c (hsa_byte_alignment): Move the function to
another file.
(dump_hsa_symbol): Dump alignment o
On 03/29/2016 01:44 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Second part of the patch set which omits one split_block (compared to the
> original patch).
> Acceptable just in case the first part will be accepted.
>
> Thanks
> Martin
>
Hi.
I'm sending v3 of the patch which does not immediately update dominato
This fixes a bug in the NVPTX backend where taking the address of a function
renamed by the backend (e.g. 'call' or 'malloc') would wrongly use the
original name. Now all decl renaming is handled up front via
TARGET_MANGLE_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME hook, which becomes the only caller of
nvptx_name_replac
Hi,
This patch adds support for undefined register copies.
This is simply done by calling scalar_chain::convert_op
for copied registers. Bootstrapped and regtested on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu{-m32}. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2016-03-31 Ilya Enkovich
* config/i386/i386.c (s
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:25:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> This patch adds support for undefined register copies.
> This is simply done by calling scalar_chain::convert_op
> for copied registers. Bootstrapped and regtested on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu{-m32}. OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks,
> Il
On 03/30/2016 11:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
As mentioned in the PR, we are miscompiling glibc on i686-linux, because
the new indirect_jump_optimize mini-pass thinks that a insn
which has REG_LABEL_OPERAND note necessarily has to set the target register
to that label, while in the glibc case
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:25:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> This patch adds support for undefined register copies.
>> This is simply done by calling scalar_chain::convert_op
>> for copied registers. Bootstrapped and regtested on
>> x86
On 03/31/16 07:18, Alexander Monakov wrote:
This fixes a bug in the NVPTX backend where taking the address of a function
renamed by the backend (e.g. 'call' or 'malloc') would wrongly use the
original name. Now all decl renaming is handled up front via
TARGET_MANGLE_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME hook, whic
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Quite lot of time is used when IVOPT computes cost for pairs.
>>> As a matter of fact, some pairs are very similar to e
Ping.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 23/03/16 10:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Ping.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 07/03/16 15:40, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00046.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 01/03/16 16:17, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
For GCC 6 we want to deprecate archit
Another potential buglet I stumbled across whilst testing the tree-type
work:
in c/c-array-notation.c::fix_builtin_array_notation_fn()
<...>
if (list_size > 1)
{
new_yes_ind = build_modify_expr
(location, *new_var, TREE_TYPE (*new_var), NOP_EXPR,
Hi,
In this PR we have a situation where we aren't really detecting
weak references vs weak definitions. If one has a weak definition
that binds locally there's no reason not to put out PC relative
relocations.
However if you have a genuine weak reference that is
known not to bind locally
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:51:26PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 30 March 2016 at 23:42, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> > On 30/03/16 17:14, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >>
> >> This test ICEs since the addition of the assert in pp_string which ensures
> >> that
> >> we aren't trying to print an
Hi Jake!
On Mon, 2016-03-28 16:34:56 -0700, Jake Hamby wrote:
> Amazingly enough, my patch worked well enough that my NetBSD VAX
> kernel built with GCC 5.3 is no longer crashing. I feel pretty good
> about what I have so far so here's the complete diff for both the
> C++ exception fix and the ba
Hi,
this is OK with one small adjustments in a comment:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 03:51:53PM +0100, Martin Liska wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2016-03-23 Martin Liska
>
> PR hsa/70391
> * hsa-brig.c (emit_directive_variable): Emit alignment
> according to hsa_symbol::m_align.
>
Hello,
PR 70292 turned out to be the duplicate of PR 64411, which is already fixed
on trunk, but still the testcase from the PR is worth adding. It can be
tortured instead of being a target test, and also this PR showed that 64411
is a regression and should be backported to gcc-5-branch.
Co
Hello,
On 14.03.2016 12:10, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hello,
In this thread I will be posting the patches for the fixed selective
scheduling PRs (except the one that was already kindly checked in by Jeff).
The patches were tested both on x86-64 and ia64 with the following
combination: 1) the u
Hi,
This fixes the use-after-free detailed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481
There is a variable ksize storing the amount of allocated memory for the array
ktypevec. ksize being zero (0) indicates that some memory must be allocated
upon the first write. When more memory is
Hello,
Patch in the bottom fixes typo causing PR target/70453.
Boostrapped and regtested on i?86/x86_64.
I'll check it into main trunk and gcc-5-branch.
gcc/
PR target/70453
* config/i386/sse.md (define_mode_attr shuffletype): Fix typo.
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/70453
Hello,
On 12.03.2016 20:13, Jeff Law wrote:
As Andrey outlined in the PR, selective-scheduling was missing a check &
handling of hard registers in modes that span more than one hard reg. This
caused an incorrect register selection during renaming.
I verified removing the printf call from the t
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 02:43:17PM +0100, Martin Liska wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2016-03-23 Martin Liska
>
> PR hsa/70391
> * hsa-gen.c (hsa_function_representation::update_cfg): New
> function.
> (convert_addr_to_flat_segment): Likewise.
> (gen_hsa_memory_
On 31 Mar 13:47, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:25:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >> This patch adds support for undefined register copies.
> >> This is simply done by calling scalar_chain::convert_op
> >> for copied re
Hi,
gcc.dg/torture/pr69951.c has been failing for arm*-*-linux* targets, as
we put out "b = a" as a way of defining a symbol alias, which trips an
assembler warning if the left hand side is an instruction name (such as 'b'
for branch, see [1] for context).
We don't want to do this, a simple .set
On 31/03/16 16:41, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> gcc.dg/torture/pr69951.c has been failing for arm*-*-linux* targets, as
> we put out "b = a" as a way of defining a symbol alias, which trips an
> assembler warning if the left hand side is an instruction name (such as 'b'
> for branch, see [
On 03/31/2016 08:30 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Hi Jake!
On Mon, 2016-03-28 16:34:56 -0700, Jake Hamby wrote:
Amazingly enough, my patch worked well enough that my NetBSD VAX
kernel built with GCC 5.3 is no longer crashing. I feel pretty good
about what I have so far so here's the complete di
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:27 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
Quite lot of time is used when IVOPT computes cost for pairs.
>
On 30/03/16 09:34, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 29/03/16 19:46, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 16 March 2016 at 16:54, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
Hi all,
This is the GCC 4.9 backport of
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01338.htm
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:11:49PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In this PR we have a situation where we aren't really detecting
> weak references vs weak definitions. If one has a weak definition
> that binds locally there's no reason not to put out PC relative
> relocations.
In looking at PR55635, I got confused as to why changes to
finish_destructor_body didn't affect the generated code. Then I realized that
the delete call and in-charge stuff being emitted there was entirely inactive.
We now generate the deleting dtor in build_delete_destructor_body
(optimize
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> Sorry, Should have replied to gcc-patches list.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> bin
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: "Bin.Cheng"
>> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:55:04 +0800
>> Subjec
On 03/30/16 09:44, Jason Merrill wrote:
Hmm, I think the use of the flag there was meant to allow leaving the exception
specification off in some declarations. I'm open to getting stricter, but I'd
prefer to make it a pedwarn when !flag_exceptions rather than an error, in which
case we still ne
OK.
Jason
On 03/31/2016 04:40 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Let's say "efficient memory copy instructions." It is of curse
> possible to use slower ones.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
Thanks for review, I'm attaching the version of the patch
I'm going to install.
Martin
>From 9a6ab745a88b5d40d1c1523e75dff00d4fe2e
On 03/31/2016 04:58 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 02:43:17PM +0100, Martin Liska wrote:
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2016-03-23 Martin Liska
>>
>> PR hsa/70391
>> * hsa-gen.c (hsa_function_representation::update_cfg): New
>> function.
>> (convert_addr
On 03/31/2016 08:55 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote:
Hi,
This fixes the use-after-free detailed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70481
There is a variable ksize storing the amount of allocated memory for the array
ktypevec. ksize being zero (0) indicates that some memory must be allocat
On 03/31/2016 07:22 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
@@ -1237,11 +1237,13 @@ squangle_mop_up (struct work_stuff *work)
Thanks. I've just installed this patch, along with suitable tests from
70481 and 67394.
What are the rules for modifying libiberty again? Do we have to patch
binutils/gdb at the same ti
On 03/31/2016 08:14 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:51:26PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 30 March 2016 at 23:42, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 30/03/16 17:14, Marek Polacek wrote:
This test ICEs since the addition of the assert in pp_string which ensures
that
we a
On 03/31/2016 11:29 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 03/31/2016 07:22 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
@@ -1237,11 +1237,13 @@ squangle_mop_up (struct work_stuff *work)
Thanks. I've just installed this patch, along with suitable tests from
70481 and 67394.
What are the rules for modifying libiberty again? Do
Hello.
Following patch introduces just a single helper method,
install to HSA branch as r234648.
Thanks,
Martin
>From 6d7c765425de3363a8edef2c25572b8208123fb8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:39:56 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] HSA: introduce append_phi method
gcc/Change
On 03/24/2016 03:59 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Current HSA back-end wrongly handles memory stores. Although, we properly
> identify
> that an immediate operand needs to respect type of a memory store instruction
> it belongs to,
> the binary representation of the operand is not updated
On 03/30/2016 01:25 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 03/30/2016 12:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/30/2016 09:30 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 03/29/2016 11:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Are we confident that arr[0] won't make it here as
POINTER_PLUS_EXPR or
some such?
I'm as confident as I can be gi
The following patch fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70461
I tried to do minimal changes. It is hard to create a test for the
PR as the generated code can be changed in future. So the patch has no
test.
The patch was bootstrapped and tested on x86-64.
Committed as
+ /* Avoid folding references to struct members at offset
0 to
+ prevent tests like '&ptr->firstmember == 0' from getting
+ eliminated. When ptr is null, although the -> expression
+ is strictly speaking invalid, GCC retains it as a matter
+ of QoI.
OK, thanks.
Jason
On 31 March 2016 at 18:26, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 30/03/16 09:34, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29/03/16 19:46, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16 March 2016 at 16:54, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>
> H
Jason Merrill writes:
> OK.
The testcase FAILs on Solaris with the native ld:
FAIL: g++.dg/template/ptrmem30.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/template/ptrmem30.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/template/ptrmem30.C -std=c++98 (test for excess errors)
Excess
Hi JBG,
Thanks for the interest! Unfortunately, I need a few more days to work on this
patch to clean it up and fix a few more bugs, then I'll send out a new version
to NetBSD port-vax for testing, with ChangeLog entry. Please consider what I
sent out earlier to be a work-in-progress at this po
This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the
subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap:
/home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void
scan_sharing_clauses(tree, omp_context*, bool)’:
/home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c:2381:6: error: suggest explici
-Wparentheses currently warns about an ambiguous "else" in this code
if (a)
if (b)
bar ();
else
baz ();
but it fails to warn if there is an iteration statement between the
inner and outer ifs:
if (a)
for (;;)
if (b)
bar ();
else
baz ();
To fix this it
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Patrick Palka wrote:
> This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the
> subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap:
>
> /home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void
> scan_sharing_clauses(tree, omp_context*, bool)’:
> /home/patric
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Patrick Palka wrote:
> This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the
> subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap:
>
> /home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void
> scan_sharing_clauses(tree, omp_context*, bool)’:
> /home/patric
On 03/31/2016 10:53 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the
subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap:
/home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void
scan_sharing_clauses(tree, omp_context*, bool)’:
/home/patrick/code/g
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 10:53 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the
> > subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap:
> >
> > /home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void
> > scan_sh
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 04:53:45PM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> @@ -2526,12 +2526,13 @@ struct GTY(()) lang_decl {
>
>*/
> #define FOR_EACH_CLONE(CLONE, FN)\
> - if (TREE_CODE (FN) == FUNCTION_DECL\
> - && (DECL_MAYBE_IN_CHARGE_CONSTRUCTOR_P
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 04:54:04PM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> I think that covers all the vanilla C++ constructs that this warning has
> to consider. As for C++ extensions, we still fail to warn for
>
> if (a)
> #pragma GCC ivdep
> while (1)
>if (b)
> bar ();
> else
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 04:54:04PM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > I think that covers all the vanilla C++ constructs that this warning has
> > to consider. As for C++ extensions, we still fail to warn for
> >
> > if (a)
> > #pragma GCC ivdep
> >
On 03/23/16 11:24, Evandro Menezes wrote:
On 03/17/16 15:09, Evandro Menezes wrote:
This patch implements FP division by an approximation using the Newton
series.
With this patch, DF division is sped up by over 100% and SF division,
zilch, both on A57 and on M1.
gcc/
* con
On 03/18/16 18:00, Evandro Menezes wrote:
On 03/18/16 17:20, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Evandro Menezes wrote:
On 03/18/16 10:21, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
Hi Evandro,
For example, though this approximation is improves the performance
noticeably for DF on A57, for SF, not so much, if at all.
I'm sti
On 03/16/16 14:48, Evandro Menezes wrote:
On 02/03/16 13:46, Evandro Menezes wrote:
On 01/08/16 16:55, Evandro Menezes wrote:
On 12/16/2015 02:11 PM, Evandro Menezes wrote:
On 12/16/2015 05:24 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 15/12/15 23:34, Evandro Menezes wrote:
On 12/14/2015 05:26 A
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 04:53:45PM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> This patch fixes the new -Wparentheses warnings (implemented by the
> subsequent patch) that are encountered during bootstrap:
>
> /home/patrick/code/gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function ‘void
> scan_sharing_clauses(tree, omp_context*, bo
Hi,
This fixes the invalid write of size 8 detailed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70492
Handle the special case when consume_count returns -1 due to an integer
overflow when parsing the length of the virtual table qualifier in
cplus-dem.c:2994 (gnu_special).
Index: libiberty
Sometimes people write loops that they do not want optimized away, even
when the compiler can replace those loops by a simple expression (or
nothing). For such people, this patch adds a compiler option.
Bootstrapped on powerpc64-linux; regression check still in progress
(with Init(1) to actually
Richard Biener writes:
> Hell, even slapping a xfail powerpc*-*-* on all current ppc FAILs
> would be better
> than simply disabling all of guality for ppc.
FWIW, I agree. While working on the debug early project, I found at
least two legitimate bugs affecting all architectures with guality tes
81 matches
Mail list logo
