On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:05 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:36 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> > On 3/5/19 7:44 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > So fixing it properly with also re-optimize_stmt those stmts so we'd CSE
> > > the MAX_EXPR introduced by folding makes it somewhat
On 3/4/19 6:17 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:23 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 01:13:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
* Make TREE_NO_WARNING more fine-grained
(inspired by comment #7 of PR74762 [3])
TREE_NO_WARNING is currently used as a c
Snapshot gcc-7-20190307 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7-20190307/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-7
Gcc 8.2.0 (arm-none-eabi) throws a warning on the following construct:
uint32_t a;
uint16_t b;
if ( a > b ) ...
compaining that a signed integer is compared against an unsigned.
Of course, it is correct, as 'b' was promoted to int.
But shouldn't it be smart enough to know that (int) b is restri
Correction:
The construct gcc complains about is not
if ( a < b ) ...
but
if ( a < b - ( b >> 2 ) ) ...
but still the same applies. The RHS of the > operator can never be
negative or have an overflow on 32 bits.
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 10:40:06 +1100
Zoltan Kocsi wrote:
> Gcc 8.2.0 (arm-none-eab
I have been working on some PPA's that will provide standard Ubuntu
and Linux Mint packages that are compiled with the znver1 cpu
optimisations (Ryzen CPU). It has been quite tedious (though not
particularly hard) to modify existing packages to be compiled with
"-march=znver1" cflags and cxxflags,
