lambda coding style

What formatting style do we want for non-trivial lambdas in GCC sources? I'm thinking the most consistent choice would be auto l = [&] (parms) // space between ] ( { // brace on new line, indented two spaces return stuff; }; By default, recent emacs lines up the { with

Re: lambda coding style

On 1/10/24 15:59, Marek Polacek wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 02:58:03PM -0500, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote: What formatting style do we want for non-trivial lambdas in GCC sources? I'm thinking the most consistent choice would be auto l = [&] (parms) // spac

Re: lambda coding style

On 1/10/24 16:41, Marek Polacek wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 04:24:42PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: On 1/10/24 15:59, Marek Polacek wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 02:58:03PM -0500, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote: What formatting style do we want for non-trivial lambdas in GCC sources? I&#

Re: lambda coding style

On 1/11/24 12:48, Martin Jambor wrote: On Wed, Jan 10 2024, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote: What formatting style do we want for non-trivial lambdas in GCC sources? I'm thinking the most consistent choice would be auto l = [&] (parms) // space between ] ( { // bra

Re: Improvement of CLOBBER descriptions

On 2/21/24 10:43, Michael Matz wrote: Hello, On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, Daniil Frolov wrote: Following the recent introduction of more detailed CLOBBER types in GCC, a minor inconsistency has been identified in the description of CLOBBER_OBJECT_BEGIN: /* Beginning of object lifetime, e.g. C++ co

Re: AutoFDO tools for GCC

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:41 PM Andi Kleen via Gcc wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 08:45:22AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:54 PM Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I've been the AutoFDO maintainer for the last 1.5 years. I've resurr

Re: Patches submission policy change

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 6:23 AM Jan Beulich via Gcc wrote: > On 03.04.2024 10:57, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: > Any concerns/objections? >

Re: How to get the default values for parameters?

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 9:35 AM Hanke Zhang via Gcc wrote: > > Hi, > I'm trying to get the default values for parameters of some functions > in my GIMPLE-PASS. The example code is here: > > enum { > edefault1 = 1, > edefault2 = 2, > edefault3 = 3 > } > > void func(int p0, int p1 = edefault1,

Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 11:42 AM Tom Tromey wrote: > > "Frank" == Frank Ch Eigler writes: > > >> [...] I suggest that a basic principle for such a system is that it > >> should be *easy* to obtain and maintain a local copy of the history > >> of all pull requests. That includes all version

Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 11:24 PM Tom Tromey wrote: > Jason> Someone mentioned earlier that gerrit was previously tried > Jason> unsuccessfully. > > We tried it and gdb and then abandoned it. We tried to integrate it > into the traditional gdb development style, having it send email to > gdb-patc

Re: 1.76% performance loss in VRP due to inlining

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 5:44 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc wrote: > > In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown > in VRP, even without any code path actually using the code. I have > tracked this down to irange::get_bitmask() being compiled differently > with and without

Re: 1.76% performance loss in VRP due to inlining

On 4/30/24 12:22, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 03:09:51PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote: On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 5:44 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc wrote: In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown in VRP, even without any code path actually using

Re: Updated Sourceware infrastructure plans

On 5/1/24 12:15, Jeff Law wrote: On 4/22/24 9:24 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: Jason> Someone mentioned earlier that gerrit was previously tried Jason> unsuccessfully. We tried it and gdb and then abandoned it.  We tried to integrate it into the traditional gdb development style, having it send email

Re: configure adds -std=gnu++11 to CXX variable

On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 10:36 AM Paul Eggert wrote: > > On 2024-05-28 01:20, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > I am not aware of any distro ever changing the default -std setting for g++ > > or clang++. Are you attempting to solve a non-problem, but introducing new > > ones? > > If it's a non-problem for

Re: configure adds -std=gnu++11 to CXX variable

On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 12:49 PM Paul Eggert wrote: > > On 2024-05-28 08:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > even for C GCC updates the default > > True, but C seems to be different, in that using a later-than-default > -std=whatever is more likely to help than hurt, because the C > standardization folks

Re: configure adds -std=gnu++11 to CXX variable

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 1:34 PM Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Jason" == Jason Merrill writes: > > Jason> Thanks, though I don't think all that code needs to go; > Jason> AC_PROG_CXX_STDCXX_EDITION_TRY still looks useful for a project that > Jason&

consistent unspecified pointer comparison

https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2434r1.html proposes to require that repeated unspecified comparisons be self-consistent, which does not match current behavior in either GCC or Clang. The argument is that the current allowance to be inconsistent is user-unfriendly and doe

Re: consistent unspecified pointer comparison

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:38 PM Richard Biener wrote: > > Am 27.06.2024 um 19:04 schrieb Jason Merrill via Gcc : > > > > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2434r1.html > > proposes to require that repeated unspecified comparisons be > > s

Re: GCC 14.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

Since the RC I've fixed a few 14/15 C++ regressions with extremely safe patches, and wonder what you think about pushing them to the branch at this point: 115583, 115986, 115561 Sorry these came so late. Jason On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 8:51 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > The first release ca

Re: GCC 14.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 4:34 AM Richard Biener wrote: > On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 11:46 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc > wrote: > > > > Since the RC I've fixed a few 14/15 C++ regressions with extremely safe > > patches, and wonder what you think about pushing them to t

Re: On the subject of module consumer diagnostics.

On 9/3/24 7:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Tue, 3 Sept 2024, 10:15 Iain Sandoe, > wrote: Hi Folks, When we build a C++ binary module (CMI/BMI), we obviously have access to its source to produce diagnostics, all fine. However, when we consume that mod

Re: On the subject of module consumer diagnostics.

On 9/3/24 11:53 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: On 3 Sep 2024, at 16:08, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote: On 9/3/24 7:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Tue, 3 Sept 2024, 10:15 Iain Sandoe, mailto:i...@sandoe.co.uk>> wrote: Hi Folks, When we build a C++ binary module (CMI/BMI), we obviousl

Re: On the subject of module consumer diagnostics.

On 9/6/24 9:41 AM, Ben Boeckel wrote: On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 09:30:26 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: On Fri, 2024-09-06 at 08:44 -0400, Ben Boeckel via Gcc wrote: Does this have (additional) implications for caching tools and modules? They cache diagnostic output, but if these other paths showing

Update bootstrap requirement to C++14?

We moved to a bootstrap requirement of C++11 in GCC 11, 8 years after support was stable in GCC 4.8. It is now 8 years since C++14 was the default mode in GCC 6 (and 9 years since support was complete in GCC 5); perhaps it's time to update? IIRC I've previously suggested this in response to a cou

Re: BUG: realloc(p,0) is not conforming to C99/C11/C17/POSIX.1-2008

On 10/17/24 12:09 PM, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: CC += JeanHeyd CC += Robert, Joseph, gcc@ CC += Doug, as the author of the original malloc(3). Please don't CC random people (and mailing lists) on a glibc bug report. See https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/FilingBugs for bug reporting i

Re: Update bootstrap requirement to C++14?

On 9/16/24 11:14 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Jason Merrill via Gcc: We moved to a bootstrap requirement of C++11 in GCC 11, 8 years after support was stable in GCC 4.8. Note that some documentation still says C++03, for example: | The directories gcc, libcpp and fixincludes may use C++03

Re: Interest in Contributing Diagnostic System to GCC

On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 5:58 AM JohnyTheCarrot via Gcc wrote: > Dear Basile and other GCC friends, > > I may have not been clear about the purpose of my code. > It does not analyze code, it merely formats / constructs diagnostics for > printing to a terminal. > > I am looking to perhaps contribute

Re: GCC does not optimize well enough with vectors on bitshift

Thanks for the report! Please file it at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=gcc On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:47 AM Qwert Nerdish via Gcc > wrote: > > > Correct link is https://godbolt.org/z/GfeTobMvs > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 4:45 PM Qwert Nerdish > > wrote: > > > > > On thi

<    1   2   3   4   5   6