On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 08:45:16AM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > 2017-01-23 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > * configure.tgt: Enable tsan and lsan on powerpc64{,le}-*-linux*.
> >
> > --- libsanitizer/configure.tgt.jj 2016-11-09 15:22:50.0 +0100
> > +++
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:10:01PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > Another question is, it seems upstream has s390{,x}-*-linux* support for
> > > asan/ubsan, does that wor
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 02:50:37PM +0200, Angel Dimitrov wrote:
> Can I compile on Linux with gfortran code and to run it on Phi
> co-processor? Or it is better to use Intel FORTRAN compiler?
Depends on which XeonPhi do you have. GCC doesn't support Knights Ferry
or Knights Corner, does support
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 01:47:33PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Freescale did not implement the POWER architecture. Again, POWER is a
> comment about the original IBM POWER architecture (RIOS processors)
> and used in RISC System/6000 computers, not the recent POWER
> processors called POWER4, P
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:34:26AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 06:38:40PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:36:02AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > Since we've been talking about obsoleting cpu support, how about
> > > getting rid of -many in ASM_
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 03:44:17PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> There is no flag to suppress that error or demote it to a warning, is there?
> Could be useful when adapting large code bases to C++17 incrementally.
It is a warning in C++11/C++14 now, so compile with -std=c++14 and
incrementally
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:02:38AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> It would need to be done before graphite, and yes, the question is when
> to do this (given the non-trival text size and runtime cost). One option is
> to do sth similar like we do with IFN_LOOP_VECTORIZED, that is, after
> followup
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:10:34AM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Some (many?) targets have instructions that perform an arithmetic operation
> and set the condition flags based on the result.
> For example, on aarch64, we have instructions like ADDS, SUBS, ANDS etc.
> In the machine
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:18:09AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 20/04/17 08:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 04/19/2017 07:07 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > I know it's a bit late, but I'd like to propose deprecating the
> > > libstdc++ extension that allows arithmetic on std::atomic.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:25:40AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> In theory maybe.
>
> > I mean, with -pedantic-errors we already error on void * arighmetics
> > or function pointer arithmetics. If std::atomic would use
> > the void * arithmetics, it would also reject it. Or does it use integer
Status
==
We have reached zero P1 regressions today (and < 100 important
regressions) and the branches/gcc-7-branch has been created;
GCC 7.1-rc1 will be built and announced likely tomorrow.
The branch is now frozen for blocking regressions and documentation
fixes only, all changes to the bran
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:03:38AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Yet another case where warning suppression in system headers hurts the
> library's ability to give diagnostics. We can't warn about using
> incomplete types in std::unique_ptr because the -Wdelete-incomplete
> warning gets suppresse
Status
==
The trunk has branched for the GCC 7 release and is now open
again for general development, stage 1. Please consider not
disrupting it too much during the RC phase of GCC 7 so it
is possible to test important fixes for 7.1 on it.
Quality Data
Priority # Cha
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 06:08:15PM +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 04/20/2017 12:02 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Status
> > ==
> >
> > We have reached zero P1 regressions today (and < 100 important
> > regressions) and the branches/gcc-7-branch has b
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:03:40AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> >From what I can tell, the n_opts and opts in that file come direct from
> opt-read.awk, which gets them from opt-gather.awk, which appears to
> sort them (but my awk skills are weak).
Perhaps a bug in the FreeBSD awk?
The *.awk fil
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:54:04AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > On Apr 25 2017, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >
> > > Someone (other than Richard who seems to have fixed his
> > > bootstrap issue) in the last 3 days has broken bootstrap
>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:18:28AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > --- gcc/Makefile.in 2017-04-18 21:16:24.703775156 +0200
> > +++ gcc/Makefile.in 2017-04-25 18:56:58.304963926 +0200
> > @@ -2139,6 +2139,7 @@ s-specs : Makefile
> >
> > optionlist: s-options ; @true
> > s-options: $(ALL_OPT_FILES)
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:43:00PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> This appears to fix my problem. Do you want to commit the patch
> or would you rather have me do it? Note, the problem is present
> in 7-branch. I haven't checked the other branches.
Committed to trunk, 7.x will need to wait until 7
The first release candidate for GCC 7.1 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7.0.1-RC-20170425
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 247264.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux and i686-linux. Please test it a
The second release candidate for GCC 7.1 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7.0.1-RC-20170428
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 247368.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux and i686-linux. Please test it
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 07:49:45PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Committed to trunk, 7.x will need to wait until 7.1 is released,
> > the rc1 is already in the works and this isn't anything new, I
> > see the sam
We are proud to announce the next, major release of the
GNU Compiler Collection, 7.1. This year we celebrated the 30th
anniversary of the first GCC beta release and this month
we will celebrate 30 years since the GCC 1.0 release.
GCC 7.1 is a major release containing substantial new
functionality
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 10:25:53AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 3 May 2017 at 06:23, carl hansen wrote:
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 18:17 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >>> With gcc 6.3.0, we have this in our build recipe:
> >>>
> >>> %defi
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:06:26PM +0200, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> GCC 7.1 was released this week. Are there any plans for a GCC 6.4 release?
Not immediately, usually we made a release around the x.2 release from the
latest release branch or a little bit earlier, so maybe in late June
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 10:48:56PM +0200, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> I've got a project which - when compiled with "arm-none-eabi" GCC 7.1
> without optimizations - produces quite a lot of such messages:
It is a note that such code is ABI incompatible between GCC 6.x and 7.1,
so if you recompile all
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:06:13AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> It's absolutely a supported feature. Why else do you think the manual
> would discuss so many options for preprocessing, and options for
> compiling preprocessed code?
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Overall-Options.html seems
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> I guess neither redhat
> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a
> login page but there seem to be 1.5.1 packages) nor SuSE did update dejagnu
> in the meantime.
Fedora has dejagnu-1.6 in Fedo
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:15:54PM +0300, Kirill Yu Berezin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have a code snippet (actually it is a part of larger project):
That snippet invokes undefined behavior at runtime (violates C++ aliasing
rules),
so just fix it, rather than bother with bugreports. E.g. look for
-
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:16:44PM +0300, K wrote:
> > ui16 *ptr = (ui16*)buf;
> >
> > There's no need for any of this messing about with pointer casts, as has
> > been explained.
> >
>
> Sorry, but I still can't get the idea. Cast from udp_pseudo to uint8_t
> doesn't have an aliasing
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:27:30AM +0200, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Gzip was once ubiquituous in distro packages and it was replaced. But this
> time distros won't lead the change because they can work around the main
> defects of xz. As you can read in section 2.2 of
> http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:01:41AM +0300, info rmer wrote:
> 12.06.2017, 21:41, "Richard Biener" :
> >
> > 6.3.1 is the version GCC reports for snapshots off the GCC 6 branch
> > between the 6.3 and the upcoming 6.4 release. It's basically 6.3 with
> > additional patches.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
>
>
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 03:58:35PM +0200, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> > > Does it matter? What should be used for new files?
> > I think that in general we should probably use the Runtime Library
> > Exception for header files that might need to be included by a plugin,
> > which means anything that m
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:08:41AM -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
> > Heh. I suspect -Os would benefit from a separate compilation pipeline
> > such as -Og. Nowadays the early optimization pipeline is what you
> > want (mostly simple CSE & jump optimizations, focused on code
> > size improvements).
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 01:38:17PM +0800, 吴潍浠(此彼) wrote:
> Hi Jeff
>
> I have signed the copyright assignment, and used the name 'Wish Wu' .
> Should I send you a copy of my assignment ?
>
> The attachment is my new patch with small changes.
> Codes are checked by ./contrib/check_GNU_style.sh, e
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:50:16AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> What we instrument in LLVM is _comparisons_ rather than control
> structures. So that would be:
> _4 = x_8(D) == 98;
> For example, result of the comparison can be stored into a bool struct
> field, and then used in branching long
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 03:41:19PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On its own -O3 doesn't add much (some loop opts and slightly more
> aggressive inlining/unrolling), so whatever it does we
> should consider doing at -O2 eventually.
Well, -O3 adds vectorization, which we don't enable at -O2 by defa
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:13:39PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:56:04AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Yes, these are some of the things we kicked around. One of the most
> > interesting conclusions was that for these target issues we'd really
> > like a target.pd file
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:06:22PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 08:40:41PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > I'm greatly oversimplifying here. Type promotion/demotion is fairly
> > > > complex to get right.
> > >
> >
Status
==
The GCC 5 branch is still open for regression and documentation fixes
but it's about time to close the branch with a last release from it.
Thus at the end of the next week I plan to do a RC for GCC 5.5 following
with a release and the branch closing game.
Please consider backporting
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 03:22:28PM +0800, Jia He wrote:
> Thanks a lot, Andrew
>
> Seems the centos 7.x still use gcc 4.8.5
>
> Does gcc has any plan to push this fix to rhel?
This really doesn't belong to this ml, as gcc 4.8 isn't supported
upstream for years.
That said, it is fixed in RHEL 7.
On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 03:52:39PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> While debugging some of my tests I noticed unexpected differences
> between the results depending on whether or not the stpcpy function
> is declared. It turns out that the differences are caused by
> the handle_builtin_strcpy functio
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:05:06PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > and taking different paths depending on whether or not the test
> > > succeeds.
> > >
> > > As far as can see, the tests have been there since the pass was
> > > added, but I don't understand from the comments in the file what
> > >
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 09:00:41AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Thanks. That makes sense to me. The wrinkle with this approach
> is that the same code (same function) has different effects on
> the compiler (as in, is subject to different optimization
> decisions, or can cause false positives/neg
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 10:41:59AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I also take back what I said about application programs being
> unaffected by this. Using the declaration to make these decisions
> results in less optimal code when compiling in strict conformance
> mode (e.g., -std=c11 or -std=c++14
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:45:24AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> What's more, in strict mode GCC transforms stpcpy calls to strcpy.
Only if the result is not needed or if the length of the source string
is already known. And we do that transformation regardless of strict
mode. If the result is ne
The first release candidate for GCC 5.5 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5.5.0-RC-20171002
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 253367.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux and i686-linux. Please test it a
Status
==
The 5.5 branch is now frozen for the final GCC 5.5 release, the release
candidate has been announced. All changes to the branch require RM
approval.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 09:11:05AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/03/2017 05:36 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:27:05PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> >> Is there an idiom for target-specific back end code to ask the pass manager
> >> if a particular pass (e.g
After the GCC 5.5 release the GCC 5 branch is now closed. Please
refrain from committing to it from now on.
Thanks
Jakub
The GNU Compiler Collection version 5.5 has been released.
GCC 5.5 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 5 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 5.4 with more than 250 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This is also the last release from the GCC 5 branch, GCC c
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:38:28AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Denis Bakhvalov wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have a hot inner loop which was vectorized by gcc, but I also want
> > compiler to unroll this loop by some factor.
> > It can be controled in clang with t
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 04:23:11PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> is there a way to get vectorized math functions in fortran?
>
> in c code there is attribute simd declarations or openmp
> declare simd pragma to tell the compiler which functions
> have simd variant, but i see no such thing in fortr
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:49:18PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> to answer my question..
>
> it seems fortran cannot express the type signature
> of mathematical functions because arguments are
> passed by reference.
Fortran indeed normally does pass by reference, and you can vectorize it
that wa
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 08:30:01PM +0100, jacob navia wrote:
> Suppose (one of the multiple scenarios) that you store in a set of memory
> locations data like wind speed, temperature, etc. Only the thread that
> updates that table acquires a lock. All others access the data without any
> locks in r
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 06:39:20PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> Jim has recently started working at SiFive, where he'll be contributing
> to our GCC port. Andrew, Kito and I would like him to be a mainatiner.
> My understand is that this is the right place to ask.
It is the steering committee t
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 04:28:18AM -0800, Yun He wrote:
> Jakub, Ed, and/or GCC support,
>
> Appreciate if we could get an update for GCC. SC17 is just around the
> corner.
>
> Below is what we have for now.
>
> Open Source GCC Free and open source – Linux, Solaris, AIX, MacOSX,
> Windows, Free
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 08:59:41AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 08:49 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >
> > The IL is comparing
> > ptr == 0B
> >
> > and I see:
> > Type op1 : 0x7fd8e312df18 -> integer(kind=4) (*) (void)
> > Type op2 : 0x7fd8e2fa10a8 -> void *
> >
> > These 2 ty
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 06:14:35PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > However, this routine currently miss a very obvious case as the following:
> >
> > char s[100] = {'a','b','c','d’};
> >
> > __builtin_strcmp(s, "abc") != 0
> >
> > So, I have to change this routine to include such common case.
> >
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:08:40AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 01.12.17 at 06:45, wrote:
> > On 29 Nov 08:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> in an unrelated context I've stumbled across a change of yours
> >> from Aug 2014 (revision 213847) where you "extend" the ways
> >> of loading zeros into re
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 05:00:23PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/12/17 14:04, Liu Hao wrote:
> >
> > 0) What is the magical `@tpoff` suffix supposed to do? The `@ntpoff` and
> > `@dtpoff` things are documented in System V ABI but there doesn't seem
> > to be anything about `@tpoff`.
> > 1) Ho
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 08:56:05AM +0800, chengjian (D) wrote:
> So my question is :
> It seems that one of the optimization options in the -O1 option eliminates
> the dead code, I have seen the optimize doccument about GCC
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-6.4.0/gcc/Optimize-Options.html
>
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:47:41AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> In my original proposal, I said this:
>
> > It includes a bunch of macro->hook conversions, mostly because the
> > hooks need an additional parameter (the function) to detect which ones
> > are Renesas ABI and which are GCC ABI.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 02:27:55PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:47:41AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> >>
> >> In my original proposal, I said this:
> >>
> >> > It inc
d*, but looking at the
glibc implementation it uses e.g. for tiny or huge values floating point
multiplication and is thus affected by the rounding mode.
nextafter/nexttoward also perform floating point multiplication or addition,
but they evaluate it only for the exceptions, so should
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:30:39PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> I don't seem to have write access to bugs in GCC Bugzilla. I'm pretty
> sure I used to have it. Who do I contact? Thanks.
You need to use the @gcc.gnu.org account to have write access to bugzilla,
using some other account usually d
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:24:00PM +0100, Tim van Deurzen wrote:
> On 01/10/2018 02:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > On 9 Jan 2018 10:56 p.m., "Tim van Deurzen" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just to confirm with you, it does make sense to conditionally
> > parse the token for operator<=> in libc
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 01:54:25PM -0500, Cory Fields wrote:
> Thanks for letting me know about this effort. That's great news!
>
> Indeed, I ran into less of these issues on trunk. I'll go ahead and
> submit patches for the cases that turned up there.
The qsort checking failures are tracked in h
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:55:42PM +0100, David Brown wrote:
> Many of these are going to be used automatically by the compiler. You
> write "strdup" in your code, and the compiler treats it as
> "__builtin_strdup". I don't know that such functions need to be
> documented as extensions, but they
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:04:55PM +0100, Manuel Rigger wrote:
> In a second step, we also considered internal builtins and found that the
> vararg handling builtins (__builtin_va_start, __builtin_va_end,
> __builtin_va_arg, and __builtin_va_copy) are relied upon by many projects,
> even though the
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:44:40AM -0800, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have a question about loop vectorization, OpenMP, and libmvec. I am
> experimenting with this on Aarch64 and looking at what exists on x86
> and trying to understand the relationship (if there is one) between the
> vector library (l
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 07:56:38AM +0100, Siegmar Gross wrote:
> some days ago I've installed gcc-8-20180225 with accelerator support on my
> "SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12.3 (x86_64)" with gcc-6.4.0. Yesterday I
> tried to add the languages objc, obj-c++, and go to my installation.
> Unfortuna
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Siegmar Gross wrote:
> there are differences in the log files.
Toplevel configure.ac has:
# Disable libgo for some systems where it is known to not work.
# For testing, you can easily override this with --enable-libgo.
section, clearly
nvptx*-*)
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:01:20PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hello Siyuan,
>
> On Mon, Mar 12 2018, LIU SIYUAN wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Hi, my name is Siyuan and this is my first time using the GCC mailing list!
>
> Welcome!
Yeah, welcome.
> For the OMPD task, you will primarily want to
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:08:58AM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have a question about the math vector library routines in libmvec.
> If I compile a program on x86 with -Ofast, something like:
>
> void foo(double * __restrict x, double * __restrict y, double * __restrict z)
> {
> for (int i
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:22:03AM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 10/04/18 11:14, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> > As I mentioned previously in that thread you linked to, the fortran
> > frontend never generates a direct call to libm sin(), or for that matter
> > ZGVbN2v_sin(). Instead it generates a "
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 02:55:43PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > And the easiest solution is in the Fortran FE based on some flag
> > (e.g. -mveclibabi=glibc) through a target hook add
> > __attribute__((__simd__ ("notinbranch")))
> > to the builtins like __builtin_sin etc. that have them in the
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 01:34:21PM +, Vivek Kinhekar wrote:
> Hello Alexander,
>
> In the given testcase, the generated fdivrs instruction performs the
> division of a symbol ref (memory value) by FPU Stack Register and stores
> the value in FPU Stack Register.
The stack registers are not mem
As has been discussed in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-02/msg00041.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg01227.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00810.html
threads and in
https://gcc.gnu.org/PR81084
the powerpc*-*-*spe* support which has been split into a separat
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:30:03PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Currently, CET is enabled by default for linux if target supports
> > multi-byte NOPs and if assembler supports CET insn. Effectively, with
> > newer binutils, CET suppor
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:15:57PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> Can somebody remind me why using -g doesn't also enable -fvar-tracking by
> default? At least for -g2, which is supposed to emit debug information
> about local variables? It seems kind of counterintuitive to me that
> specifying
Status
==
We have reached zero P1 regressions today (and < 100 important
regressions) and branches/gcc-8-branch has been created;
GCC 8.1-rc1 will be built and announced later today.
The branch is now frozen for blocking regressions and documentation
fixes only, all changes to the branch requi
Status
==
The trunk has branched for the GCC 8 release and is now open
again for general development, stage 1. Please consider not
disrupting it too much during the RC phase of GCC 8 so it
is possible to test important fixes for 8.1 on it.
Quality Data
Priority # Cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.0.1-RC-20180425/
The first release candidate for GCC 8.1 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.0.1-RC-20180425
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 259636.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release ca
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:17:26PM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> For stack protector to be robust, at no point in time the guard against
> which the canari is compared must be spilled to the stack. This is achieved
> by having dedicated insn pattern for setting the canari and comparing it
> aga
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 01:17:50PM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> It's not the canari which is spilled in this case, but the address to the
> canari. Which means an attacker could make it point to something else than
> the real canari.
When the canary is in TLS area, it is usually small constan
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 02:31:25PM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> On x86 yes, it's actually done in the same instruction that's doing the
> comparison if I'm not mistaken. That is not the case for arm and aarch64
> though where loading the canari is done separately from the comparison and
> does
The second release candidate for GCC 8.1 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.0.1-RC-20180427
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 259731.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux and i686-linux. Please test it
Hi!
PR web/85578 complains about broken links in INSTALL/specific.html inside of
the rc tarballs, I've looked at past releases and at least the releases I've
checked (4.7.0, 6.1, 7.1, 7.3, 8.1rc2) all have the broken links,
e.g.
aarch64*-*-*
and
aarch64*-*-*
Looking at online docs, they are ok.
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 12:53:45PM -0700, Chengnian Sun wrote:
> Does gcc have a requirement about the impact of emitting debug info on the
> generated code? Should the code be the same no matter whether '-g' is
> specified?
Yes (except for selective scheduling, but that warns if you combine
-fsel
We are proud to announce the next, major release of the
GNU Compiler Collection.
Are you tired of your existing compilers?
Want fresh new language features and better optimizations?
Make your day with the new GCC 8.1!
GCC 8.1 is a major release containing substantial new
functionality not availab
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:38:51AM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> Looks like I forgot to add the details of -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues to the
> changes (https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-8/changes.html). Is it too late to
> change that? At least this only really affects one project (that I'm
> aware of). I've
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 01:58:48PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> CCed Jakub,
> > Agree that float division don't touch memory ,but fdiv result (stack
> > register ) is stored back to a memory i.e fResult .
That doesn't really matter. It is stored to a stack spill slot, something
that doesn't h
Hi!
for i in `grep __builtin_ia32 config/i386/i386-builtin.def | sed
's/^.*__builtin_ia32_/__builtin_ia32_/;s/".*$//' | sort -u`; do grep -q -w $i
config/i386/*.h || echo $i; done
shows many builtins not used in any of the intrinsic headers.
I believe for the __builtin_ia32_* builtins we only
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:35:41PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> during RTL pass: dse2
> dump file: unwind-dw2-fde.c.288r.dse2
> ../../../../gcc/libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c: In function ‘get_cie_encoding’:
> ../../../../gcc/libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c:342:1: internal compiler error: in
> cselib_record_set,
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:49:51PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> Given that the starting insn had a post_inc in it, what would be a proper
> parallel... construct? If the post_inc only appears in one of the two
> mentions of the source operatnd, then the match_dup is going to fail. I
> suppose I c
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 01:38:21PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:39 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> > GCC silently (without -Wpedantic) accepts declarations of zero
> > length arrays that are followed by other members in the same
> > struct, such as in:
> >
> >struct A {
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:17:50AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Years and years ago, I went to a mess of trouble to implement this
> specialized warning so I would not have to see it anymore. I use a code
> generator that puts constant strings into one huge buffer with all the
> contained strings NUL
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:01:06PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/26/2018 12:56 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > On 06/26/2018 05:26 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > > So it looks to me that the caller of _Unwind_Find_FDE needs to
> > > ensure that the PC is a valid element of the call stack.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:39:18PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > The @code{noreturn} keyword does not affect the exceptional path
> > when that applies: a @code{noreturn}-marked function may still
> > return to the caller by throwing an exception or calling
> > @code{longjmp}.
> >
> > IIRC, in
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 05:48:32PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> > I believe "dumb" is referring to the fact that we're already in a bit of
> > a weird state as evidenced by the NULL FDE. Blindly trying to read the
> > contents of the PC that we
601 - 700 of 1688 matches
Mail list logo
