Hi,
On 28/02/2016 00:29, David Mugnai wrote:
I was looking for an easy task to start contributing to gcc, so I
choose a "trivial" bug (69733) from this list (cited in an old message
of Manuel López-Ibáñez):
See:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00720.html
Note that in any cas
I was looking for an easy task to start contributing to gcc, so I
choose a "trivial" bug (69733) from this list (cited in an old message
of Manuel López-Ibáñez):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?keywords=diagnostic&limit=0&li
st_id=99232&order=bug_status%2Cpriority%2Cassigned_to%2Cbug_id&q
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:16:51AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2016 09:06, "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > But we do already have something very similar with signed integer
> > overflow. If the compiler can see a way to generate faster code that
> > does not handle the overf
On 27/02/16 11:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:39:59AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 26/02/16 21:28, Bradley Lucier wrote:
>>> Any advice on how to proceed? I'd be willing to write and test the few
>>> lines of code myself if I knew where to put them.
>>
>> The best thing
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 04:46:50PM -0800, Hans Boehm wrote:
> If carries_dependency affects semantics, then it should not be an attribute.
I am not picky about the form of the marking.
> The original design, or at least my understanding of it, was that it not
> have semantics; it was only a sugge
On 02/26/2016 09:28 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote:
Perhaps this question is appropriate for the gcc mail list.
Converting a float/double to unsigned int is undefined if the result would be
negative when converted to a signed int.
x86-64 and arm treat this condition differently---x86-64 returns a val
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:39:59AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 26/02/16 21:28, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> > Any advice on how to proceed? I'd be willing to write and test the few
> > lines of code myself if I knew where to put them.
>
> The best thing, rather than warning, would be to define th
On 26/02/16 21:28, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> Any advice on how to proceed? I'd be willing to write and test the few
> lines of code myself if I knew where to put them.
The best thing, rather than warning, would be to define this
conversion as a GCC extension and implement it consistently
everywher
On 26 February 2016 at 20:34, Jeff Law wrote:
> Yup. Many folks are successfully using git-svn. There' instructions
> somewhere on the gcc.gnu.org site for setting that up.
At https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GitMirror
