On 04/11/14 03:41 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 03/11/14 22:07 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 3 November 2014 17:51, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. other than the above issue, I see a segmentation fault for:
performance/ext/pb_ds/multimap_text_insert_mem_large.cc
Fixed like so.
commit 75
On 11/03/2014 10:24 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
I propose enabling -fextended-identifiers by default for the appropriate
standard versions (i.e. all C++ versions, C99 and above for C - so enabled
by default for C now the default C version is gnu11). Any comments or
objections?
Yes, I've been think
On 03/11/14 22:07 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 3 November 2014 17:51, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. other than the above issue, I see a segmentation fault for:
performance/ext/pb_ds/multimap_text_insert_mem_large.cc
and a compile error for:
performance/ext/pb_ds/priority_queue_text_pop
On 03/11/14 17:19 +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 11/03/2014 03:55 PM, Rainer Emrich wrote:
Since the recent changes to the testsuites the folowing make targets in the
libstdc++ testsuite directory don't work anymore:
check-parallel
check-performance
check-performance-parallel
Any comments
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Ian Taylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Dominik Vogt
>> wrote:
>> > I'm not quite sure about the best approach. The attempt to
>> > represent C unions in the "right" way is ultimately f
On 11/03/14 09:24, Joseph Myers wrote:
I propose enabling -fextended-identifiers by default for the appropriate
standard versions (i.e. all C++ versions, C99 and above for C - so enabled
by default for C now the default C version is gnu11). Any comments or
objections?
No objections here.
jeff
On 3 November 2014 17:51, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> .. other than the above issue, I see a segmentation fault for:
>
> performance/ext/pb_ds/multimap_text_insert_mem_large.cc
>
> and a compile error for:
>
> performance/ext/pb_ds/priority_queue_text_pop_mem.cc
>
> which boils down to a an err
On 3 November 2014 21:51, David Kang wrote:
>
> Thank you for the tips.
> I tried the following condition for split.
>
> "reload_completed && FP_REG_P (operands[0])"
>
> But, the registers are still changed.
> How can I specify "after register allocation" in the split condition?
Are you sure t
Thank you for the tips.
I tried the following condition for split.
"reload_completed && FP_REG_P (operands[0])"
But, the registers are still changed.
How can I specify "after register allocation" in the split condition?
Thanks,
David
- Original Message -
> From: "Jeff Law"
> To:
On 3 November 2014 17:51, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> .. other than the above issue, I see a segmentation fault for:
>
> performance/ext/pb_ds/multimap_text_insert_mem_large.cc
>
> and a compile error for:
>
> performance/ext/pb_ds/priority_queue_text_pop_mem.cc
>
> which boils down to a an err
On 3 November 2014 09:18, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> The trunk is scheduled to transition from Stage 1 to Stage 3 at the end
> of Saturday, November 15th (use your timezone to your advantage).
>
> We have been in Stage 1 for almost 7 months now with a fortnight
> still to go. Still
On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 10:18 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> The trunk is scheduled to transition from Stage 1 to Stage 3 at the end
> of Saturday, November 15th (use your timezone to your advantage).
>
> We have been in Stage 1 for almost 7 months now with a fortnight
.. other than the above issue, I see a segmentation fault for:
performance/ext/pb_ds/multimap_text_insert_mem_large.cc
and a compile error for:
performance/ext/pb_ds/priority_queue_text_pop_mem.cc
which boils down to a an error at include/bits/stl_deque.h:519 (likely
pd_ds is misusing
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Ian Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure about the best approach. The attempt to
> > represent C unions in the "right" way is ultimately futile as Go
> > does not have the types necessary for it. For
I propose enabling -fextended-identifiers by default for the appropriate
standard versions (i.e. all C++ versions, C99 and above for C - so enabled
by default for C now the default C version is gnu11). Any comments or
objections?
The following is my list of desirable improvements in the existi
On 10/31/14 16:01, David Kang wrote:
Hi,
I'm newbie in gcc porting.
The architecture that I'm porting gcc has hardware FPU.
But the compiler has to generate code which builds a FPU instruction in a
integer register
at run-time and writes the value to the FPU command register.
To make
> What else have been people working
> on and can get posted for review before stage1 closes?
> As before, when new features are posted for review during stage 1 and only
> acked early during stage 3, they can still be accepted for GCC 5.
This patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg
Hi,
On 11/03/2014 03:55 PM, Rainer Emrich wrote:
Since the recent changes to the testsuites the folowing make targets in the
libstdc++ testsuite directory don't work anymore:
check-parallel
check-performance
check-performance-parallel
Any comments?
All I can see so far is a non-conforming use
On 11/03/2014 10:18 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What larger merges are still planned for GCC 5?
I'm aware of pending merges from match-and-simplify branch, there
are the JIT changes partially? approved, MPX also partially? approved,
Intel offloading patches partially approved, PTX support partially
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Since the recent changes to the testsuites the folowing make targets in the
libstdc++ testsuite directory don't work anymore:
check-parallel
check-performance
check-performance-parallel
Any comments?
Cheers
Rainer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Vers
The latest trunk code does not build (on s390x):
git commit id: 2ad7e37ad4be8621eade1f90dd2bc8124034712e
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@217039
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
Error messages:
-- snip --
g++ -c -g3 -O3 -DIN_GCC-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti
-fasynchr
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add "debugging"
>> output to the patterns.
>> sth like:
>>
>> (simplify
>> (plus @x integer_zerop)
>> (non_lva
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 03:12:10AM +0530, Vini Kanvar wrote:
> I am trying to compare the tree declarations of the lhs and the rhs of
> the assignment statement in the following program.
>
> struct node {
> struct node * next;
> };
> struct node ** obj1, obj2;
> obj1 = &obj2.next;
Status
==
The trunk is scheduled to transition from Stage 1 to Stage 3 at the end
of Saturday, November 15th (use your timezone to your advantage).
We have been in Stage 1 for almost 7 months now with a fortnight
st
24 matches
Mail list logo
