gcc-10-20220526 is now available

[GCC Administrator via Gcc]

Snapshot gcc-10-20220526 is now available on
  https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20220526/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.

This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch 
releases/gcc-10 revision 811f149adcda060cf80e13c066b0889caf072df2

You'll find:

 gcc-10-20220526.tar.xz   Complete GCC

  SHA256=bfdd17fdeee32ae531b89850674978797a9247c17bb01dc512ad387fddaec465
  SHA1=da8bbf282b82045d426b41628b98a9c011ec8fbd

Diffs from 10-20220519 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory.

When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-10
link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list.  Please do not use
a snapshot before it has been announced that way.

Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

[Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc]

> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson 
> Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 03:17:01 +0200

Regarding setting the default for the RWX-segment warning
per-target:

> How about the usual method, a line in the ld emulparams
> file for the target?

JFTR: no extra infrastructure bits needed.  I found the
right spot, just a trivial clause in ld/configure.tgt.

brgds, H-P

RTL Pattern not working

[RICHU NORMAN]

In gcc/combine.cc


I have written a pattern to emit a complex rtl instruction which uses 'and'
'shift'  'lshiftrt' and 'or' in a single pattern.But pattern not recognised
as single pattern.I changed the cost of this instruction to 0.Still pattern
is not generated.
How can I check if the instruction works or not?
I have checked the output in files generated in fdump-rtl-all .
Wish to know how combiner.cc works.
dump_combine_total_stats (FILE *file)
{
  fprintf
(file,
 "\n;; Combiner totals: %d attempts, %d substitutions (%d requiring new
space),\n;; %d successes.\n",
 total_attempts, total_merges, total_extras, total_successes);
}
In my case the pattern is not generated as well not compared .


-- 
Richu Norman
Research Scholar
Department of Computer Science
Cochin University of Science and Technology
Ph : (+91)-8848455627

Re: Documentation format question

[Richard Biener via Gcc]

On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:36 PM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc  wrote:
>
> I am going to get to some documentation for ranger and its components
> later this cycle.
>
> I use to stick these sorts things on the wiki page, but i find that gets
> out of date really quickly.  I could add more comments to the top of
> each file, but that doesnt seem very practical for larger architectural
> descriptions, nor for APIs/use cases/best practices.   I could use
> google docs and turn it into a PDF or some other format, but that isnt
> very flexible.
>
> Do we/anyone have any forward looking plans for GCC documentation that I
> should consider using?  It would be nice to be able to tie some of it
> into source files/classes in some way, but I am unsure of a decent
> direction.  It has to be easy to use, or I wont use it :-)  And i
> presume many others wouldn't either.  Im not too keep an manually
> marking up text either.

The appropriate place for this is the internals manual and thus the
current format in use is texinfo in gcc/doc/

> It would be nice if we had a central plan/direction that we were looking
> to adopt.  Is there such a thing I'm simply not aware of because I don't
> pay enough attention? I heard rumors on a gdb conversation that Marxin
> is dabbling/using/trying something for gcc docs?
>
> Andrew
>
>
>