Hi
Reading about macro pitfalls and eg duplication side-effects
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Macro-Pitfalls.html#Macro-Pitfalls
would it be possible to let the preprocessor generate warnings for any of these
pitfalls?
Maybe all language specific parts are not know at this early preprocess
Hi David,
Thanks for your kind response!
在 2017年07月11日 21:25, David Malcolm 写道:
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 10:50 +0800, Leslie Zhai wrote:
在 2017年07月10日 22:16, David Malcolm 写道:
On Sat, 2017-07-08 at 15:50 +0800, Leslie Zhai wrote:
Hi GCC developers,
There was
PLUGIN_REGISTER_GGC_CACHES
pseud
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:14:20AM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> On 10.07.2017 23:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:10:03PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> >>Any ideas for a sane approach?
> >
> >You could change insn_rtx_cost to actually calculate the cost of the
> >i
Snapshot gcc-5-20170711 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20170711/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5
On 07/11/17 21:42, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Bernd Edlinger
>>> wrote:
Hi,
I see this now as well on Ubuntu 16.04, but I doubt that t
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Bernd Edlinger
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I see this now as well on Ubuntu 16.04, but I doubt that the Kernel is
>>> to blame.
>>
>> I don't see the
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see this now as well on Ubuntu 16.04, but I doubt that the Kernel is
>> to blame.
>
> I don't see these failures when I use a 4.11 kernel. Only with a 4.4 kernel.
> A
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I see this now as well on Ubuntu 16.04, but I doubt that the Kernel is
> to blame.
I don't see these failures when I use a 4.11 kernel. Only with a 4.4 kernel.
Also the guality testsuite does not run at all with a 4.4 kernel, it
d
Hi,
I see this now as well on Ubuntu 16.04, but I doubt that the Kernel is
to blame.
I am able to reproduce this in debug-mode as follows:
strace -s 4096 -o strace.txt expect -- /usr/share/dejagnu/runtest.exp
--debug -v --tool gcc ubsan.exp=*
So I have now a dbg.out and a strace log file show
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Joseph Myers schrieb:
> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, in a recent change I added a pointer to some
> > > Binutils documentation in doc/extend.texi:
> > >
> > > see the GNU Binutils
> > > @w{@uref{https://sourceware.org
On 11/07/17 09:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11 July 2017 at 17:51, Jonny Grant wrote:
Hello
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html
snprintf (d, sizeof d, "%#02x", x & 0xff);
^^
Should be: sizeof(d) ?
"The sizeof operator yields the size (in bytes) of its operand, which
On 11 July 2017 at 17:51, Jonny Grant wrote:
> Hello
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html
>
> snprintf (d, sizeof d, "%#02x", x & 0xff);
>
>^^
> Should be: sizeof(d) ?
"The sizeof operator yields the size (in bytes) of its operand, which
may be an expression or the parenthes
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 09:51:19AM -0700, Jonny Grant wrote:
> Hello
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html
>
> snprintf (d, sizeof d, "%#02x", x & 0xff);
>
>^^
> Should be: sizeof(d) ?
Why? Both are correct.
Marek
Hello
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html
snprintf (d, sizeof d, "%#02x", x & 0xff);
^^
Should be: sizeof(d) ?
I'm not on this mailing list, so please cc me in any replies
Regards, Jonny
Joseph Myers schrieb:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Hi, in a recent change I added a pointer to some
Binutils documentation in doc/extend.texi:
see the GNU Binutils
@w{@uref{https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/AVR_002dDependent.html,AVR
assembler manual}}.
For other manual
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:09 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
> On 11/07/17 05:16, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> I was looking into some bitfield code for aarch64 and was wondering
>> why SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS is set to 0. I can't seem to figure out why
>> though.
>> The header says:
>>Although there
On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 10:50 +0800, Leslie Zhai wrote:
>
> 在 2017年07月10日 22:16, David Malcolm 写道:
> > On Sat, 2017-07-08 at 15:50 +0800, Leslie Zhai wrote:
> > > Hi GCC developers,
> > >
> > > There was
> > >
> > > PLUGIN_REGISTER_GGC_CACHES
> > >
> > > pseudo-events for register_callback in GCC
On 07/02/2017 07:19 PM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
Hi all!
I noticed that you started to publish GCC test coverage data. About a
year ago I also experimented with GCC's coverage and would like to
share some possible improvement ideas for your scripts.
I postprocess the coverage data with this script
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Hi, in a recent change I added a pointer to some
> Binutils documentation in doc/extend.texi:
>
> see the GNU Binutils
> @w{@uref{https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/AVR_002dDependent.html,AVR
> assembler manual}}.
For other manuals in the Texin
On 07/10/2017 05:10 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> (set (zero_extract:QI (reg/i:QI 24 r24)
> (const_int 1 [0x1])
> (const_int 6 [0x6]))
> (lshiftrt:QI (reg:QI 52)
> (const_int 6 [0x6])))
> The problem is that the backend only sees
>
> avr_rtx_costs[bset:combine(266)]=tr
Hi
I wrote a test for "-fsanitize-coverage=trace-cmp" .
Is there anybody tells me if these codes could be merged into gcc ?
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/sancov/basic3.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/sancov/basic3.c (nonexistent)
+++ g
On 11/07/17 05:16, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I was looking into some bitfield code for aarch64 and was wondering
> why SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS is set to 0. I can't seem to figure out why
> though.
> The header says:
>Although there's no difference in instruction count or cycles,
> in AArch64 we don't
Hi, in a recent change I added a pointer to some
Binutils documentation in doc/extend.texi:
see the GNU Binutils
@w{@uref{https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/AVR_002dDependent.html,AVR
assembler manual}}.
This worked well in my local build :
gcc/HTML/gcc-8.0.0/gcc/AVR-Function-Attributes.
On 10.07.2017 23:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 05:10:03PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Any ideas for a sane approach?
You could change insn_rtx_cost to actually calculate the cost of the
insn, not just set_src_cost of a single set. This will need checking
on a great
24 matches
Mail list logo
