On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 9:01 PM GT wrote:
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, December 9, 2019 3:39 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> > > I'm modifying the code trying to get complex double accepted as a valid
> > > type by the vectorizer.
&g
some
extent (worst case by providing a copy in/out to a temporary with the
old layout).
Richard.
> ________
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 3:51 AM
> To: Jan Hubicka
> Cc: Gary Oblock ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: Co
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:55 AM Gary Oblock wrote:
>
> This is at LTO time and the function in question is this:
>
> #include "stdlib.h"
> typedef struct bogus type_ta;
>
> struct bogus {
> int i;
> double x;
> int j;
> };
>
> void
> helper( void *x)
> {
> type_ta *y = (type_ta*)x;
> y->
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:49 AM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 10/01/2020 07:33, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> >> On Jan 9, 2020, at 5:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 11:34:32PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>> As noted on overseers, once Saturday's DAT
Status
==
Stage 3 ended, GCC trunk is open for regression and documentation
fixes only, stage 4.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1 20 + 14
P2 196 - 5
P3 16
can be even amended
with runtime checking. The actual layout transform is then a bijection of
offset/size.
Yes, tracking pointers is difficult but you have to do that also for type-based
approaches.
Richard.
> Gary
>
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Frida
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:47 AM Gary Oblock wrote:
>
> I'm writing an LTO optimization that requires "-flto-partition=one" How can I
> make
> sure that this is the case? I've spent hours greping the code and the
> Internals Doc is
> worth less than nothing for something like this.
That's of cou
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> > My suggestion at that time isn't likely working in practice due to the
> > limitations Jakub outlines below. The situation is a bit unfortunate
> > but expect to run into more
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> > In general I think they should match. But without seeing concrete
> > examples of where they do not I can't comment on whether such exceptions
> > make sense. For exa
On January 11, 2017 5:16:43 PM GMT+01:00, Robin Dapp
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>When examining the performance of some test cases on s390 I realized
>that we could do better for constructs like 2-byte memcpys or
>2-byte/4-byte memsets. Due to some s390-specific architectural
>properties, we could be faster b
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
>> Yes, for memset with larger element we could add an optab plus
>> internal function combination and use that when the target wants. Or
>> always use such IFN and fall back to loopy expansion.
>
> So, adding additional patterns in tree-loop-dis
int y.5_20;
>
>[100.00%]:
> x.1_1 = x;
> if (x.1_1 != 0)
> goto ; [50.00%]
> else
> goto ; [50.00%]
>
>[50.00%]:
> y.2_2 = y;
> if (y.2_2 != 0)
> goto ; [50.00%]
> else
> goto ; [50.00%]
>
>[100.00%]:
>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later to build GNAT ?
>
> We plan to use gcc exceptions within the GNAT front-end (previously we were
> using a FE specific exception mechanism).
> This requires a matching implementation in th
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> On 19 Jan 2017, at 11:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Tristan Gingold
>> wrote:
>>> Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later to build GNAT ?
>>
Status
==
The trunk is now in regression and documentation fixes mode (Stage 4)
thus as if it were a release branch. We still have the pending adoptions of
the BRIG FE and the RISC-V port.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- --
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> while analyzing a test case with a lot of nested loops (>7) and double
>> floating point operations I noticed a performance regression of GCC 6/7
>> vs GCC 5 on s390x. It seems du
On January 29, 2017 4:56:46 PM GMT+01:00, parmenides via gcc
wrote:
>Hi,
>
> I want to know how to use inline assembler instruction, and wonder
>what is the meaning of "memory" in clobbered register list. According
>to
>the manual of GCC, the "memory" will cause GCC to not keep memory
>values
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Tamar Christina
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am trying to understand how match.pd works as I'm writing a simple matching
> rule but have run into some issues
> and there's very little documented on match.pd.
>
> short version:
>
> 1) Why is there a difference in express
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:10 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Sandra Loosemore
> wrote:
>> On 02/16/2017 03:19 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 02:49:47PM -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
> I propose to mark powerpc*-*-*spe* as obso
On March 6, 2017 6:29:49 PM GMT+01:00, Ian Lance Taylor via gcc
wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, wrote:
>>
>> I'm looking into the possibility of adding a SPIR-V
>> (https://www.khronos.org/registry/spir-v) backend to GCC or as a
>> plug-in. The output of which would be binary from the c
On March 6, 2017 6:55:10 PM GMT+01:00, Alexander Monakov
wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
>> >
>> >Generating SPIR-V output would not cause that output to become GPLv3
>> >licensed. Howe
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 14:45 +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I was looking at the spec 456.hmmer benchmark and this email string
>> > from Jeff Law and Micheal Matz:
>> >
>> >
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 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
>&
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>> We've been creating those lazily over the last decade. We can change
>> that, an entry for releasing.html is appreciated then so we don't forget.
>
> And here we
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I was thinking that it would be nice to make plugins a "first-class
> citizen" in the gcc world by having a proper directory structure and
> integration into the rest of gcc. For example:
>
> gcc/plugins <--
Status
==
The trunk is in regression and documentation fixes mode (Stage 4)
thus as if it were a release branch. We are feature complete since
quite a while and just chasing down P1 bugs which block the release
of GCC 7.
Tentative release date is mid April which means, given past history,
a
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>>> I was thinking that it would be nice to make plugins a "first-class
>>> citizen" in the gcc world by having a proper directory structure and
>>> integration into the rest of gcc.
>
>> I believe plugins are currently a hack
of “+”
> > specifying that operand is both input and output).
> >
> > So current proposal of syntax is:
> >
> > __asm__ (“INSTR %[group], %[single]" :
> > [single]
> > "+x"(v0) :
>
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I gave my partial French translation a field trial this week and it didn't
> went
> well. QtCreator can't see error messages any more if they are translated.
>
> QtCreator identifies errors and warnings by parsing gcc output:
>
>
On March 27, 2017 7:59:01 PM GMT+02:00, Thomas Koenig
wrote:
>Am 27.03.2017 um 19:41 schrieb Marek Polacek:
>
>> Of course "the person" had bootstrapped and tested all the languages
>before
>> adding the warning. If only any of you bothered to check the
>fortran/
>> ChangeLogs:
>
>The problem is
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> The minimum size heuristic for the garbage collector's heap, before it
> starts collecting, was last updated over ten years ago.
> It currently has a hard upper limit of 128MB.
> This is too low for current machines where 8GB of RAM is n
On April 12, 2017 10:24:31 AM GMT+02:00, Andre Groenewald
wrote:
>I am a bit stuck on global, file and local name spaces and scopes.
>
>Normally my expression bindings is associated with a function, which
>makes the function the scope of all the variables.
>
>my front end can parse something like
NITIAL and that only
works for globals and constant initializers.
Richard.
> Regards,
> André
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On April 12, 2017 10:24:31 AM GMT+02:00, Andre Groenewald
>> wrote:
>>>I am a bit stuck on global, fi
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I was wondering if someone could help me understand a bug involving
> aliasing, this is happening on aarch64 but I don't think it is architecure
> specific. The problem involves flexible arrays vs. zero sized arrays at
> the end of a structur
On April 25, 2017 8:03:20 PM GMT+02:00, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 12:53 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> > int foo() {
>> > int i,j;
>> > for (i = 0; i < m; i++) {
>> > a->o[i] = sizeof(*a);
>&g
On April 27, 2017 8:47:18 PM GMT+02:00, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>I have a question about the GCC loop structure. I am trying to
>identify the
>induction variable for a for loop and I don't see how to do that.
>
>For example, if I have:
>
>int foo(int *a, int *b, int *c, int *d, int *e, int *f, in
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I've been working on some patches for GCOV and lcov was of my test scenarios.
> I'm sending link to static HTML pages made by the tool which are recorded
> for GCC (w/o bootstrap) build + running test-suite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
> I
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> A code that I wrote was warning-free in GCC 4.9, GCC 5 and GCC 6. It
> was also warning-free with some older GCC 7 experimental snapshots (for
> example 7-20170409). But in the most recent snapshot (including the
> first RC), it
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have a question about -fopt-info. According to the GCC documentation at:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Dump-examples.html
>
>
> | If options is omitted, it defaults to all-all, which means dump all
> | available optimization i
On May 5, 2017 3:03:43 PM GMT+02:00, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > I wonder how that patch can cause mismatches. Does it reproduce on
>one of
>> > compile farm machines (my x86-64 bootstrap works fine so does ia64
>on terbium
>> > after fixing the gcc 4.1 issue yeterday).
>> > It would be great to have
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 5 May 2017 at 21:35, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> I just submitted two patches against trunk. I'd like to also have them on
>> the
>> 7 branch, so when 7.2 comes out we'll have them. These patches only touch
>> the
>> RISC-V backend, whi
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Tue, 09 May 2017 01:50:42 PDT (-0700), richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 5 May 2017 at 21:35, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
I just submitted two patches against trunk. I
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 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?
>>
This is a heads-up that I am in the process of implementing the last
of Jasons review comments on the dwarf2out parts of early LTO debug
support. I hope to post final patches early next week after thoroughly
re-testing everything.
Note that Mach-O and [X]COFF support in the simple-object machine
On May 12, 2017 10:42:34 PM GMT+02:00, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>(Short version of this email, is there a way to recalculate/rebuild
>virtual
>phi nodes after modifying the CFG.)
>
>I have a question about duplicating loops and virtual phi nodes.
>I am trying to implement the following optimization as
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:09 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 05/13/2017 04:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
I guess neither redhat
(https://access.redhat.co
On May 15, 2017 6:56:53 PM GMT+02:00, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 08:18 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On May 12, 2017 10:42:34 PM GMT+02:00, Steve Ellcey > om> wrote:
>> >
>> > (Short version of this email, is there a way to recalculate/rebuild
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> I've been having troubles comparing the results of different test runs for
> quite some time, and have finally decided to whine about it. Perhaps someone
> can point out to whatever I may be doing wrong.
>
> I generally do "ma
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Matias Fonzo wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:18:49 -0600
> Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> On 06/07/2017 02:25 PM, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
>> > Dear GCC steering committee,
>> >
>> > This has been recently asked in this list[1], but in case you have
>> > missed it because of
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> While openSUSE has it, SLES does not. tar support seems to be
>> via calling the external lzip tool (failing if that is not available).
>
>
> You mean SUSE Linux Enterprise Serv
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> HI,
> GCC adds runtime alias checks for data references in passes like
> vectorizer, it would be very useful to pass along the runtime alias
> dependent information to later passes. Given below expample:
>
> int foo (int *a, int *b, int *c, int
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> HI,
>>>> GCC adds ru
On June 12, 2017 8:37:37 PM GMT+02:00, info rmer
wrote:
>A lot of Linux distributions have gcc 6.3.1 available, or even
>preinstalled.
>However, I am not able to find any info about 6.3.1 at the official GCC
>pages at gnu org.
>Please tell, is 6.3.1 an unofficial secret GCC release?
>What is the
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:08 AM, wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I compiled a gcc-7.1 release tree configured with
>
> '../gcc-7.1.0/configure' '--program-suffix=-7my' '--enable-shared'
> '--enable-linker-build-id' '--without-included-gettext'
> '--enable-threads=posix' '--with-sysroot=/' '--enable-clo
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Prachi Godbole
wrote:
> I'm developing a solution to optimize away intermediate stores (loads) for
> static local variables which are assigned to before referenced on every path
> through a function.
>
> Currently GCC eliminates all loads/stores in a straight lin
Status
==
The GCC 6 branch is in regression and documentation fixes mode.
I plan to do the GCC 6.4 release in the first week of July which
means a release candidate in about one and a half weeks.
Please have a look at your assigned bugs and see whether there
are any that need backporting.
All changes require release manager approval.
Thanks,
Richard.
A release candidate for GCC 6.4 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6.4.0-RC-20170628/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 249715.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Please test it and report
On June 28, 2017 6:10:27 PM GMT+02:00, Tamar Christina
wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I noticed something weird with IPA and I'm wondering if it's a bug or
>not.
>
>Given these two functions
>
>double
>check_d_pos (double x, double y)
>{
> return x * __builtin_copysign (1.0, y);
>}
>
>double
>check_d_neg (d
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017, Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > A release candidate for GCC 6.4 is available from
> >
> > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6.4.0-RC-20170628/
> >
> > and shortly its m
On June 29, 2017 4:27:18 PM GMT+02:00, Eric Botcazou
wrote:
>> Iff 6.3.0 worked then it must be caused by
>>
>> r245546 | andreast | 2017-02-17 20:21:39 +0100 (Fri, 17 Feb 2017) | 9
>> lines
>>
>> 2017-02-17 Andreas Tobler
>>
>> Backported from mainline
>> 2017-02-16 Andreas Tobler
On June 29, 2017 8:27:18 PM GMT+02:00, Eric Botcazou
wrote:
>> OK to re-apply then on the branch(es) if it fixes the bootstrap
>issue.
>
>I was wrong, it's PR sanitizer/78532 + PR sanitizer/78992 instead...
>
>2016-11-30 Maxim Ostapenko
>
> PR sanitizer/78532
> * sanitizer_common/s
Status
==
GCC 6.4 has been released and the branch is once again open for
regression and documentation fixes.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P10 - 1
P2 175 - 16
P3
The GNU Compiler Collection version 6.4 has been released.
GCC 6.4 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 6 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 6.3 with more than 102 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This release is available from the FTP servers listed at:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
> I am looking into reversing loop to increased efficiency. There is
> already a PR22041 for this and an old patch
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01851.html by Zdenek
> which never made it to mainline.
>
> For constant
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 03:15:09PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> the current cost computations in rtlanal.c and maybe other places
>> suffer from the fact that they are hiding parts of the expressions
>> from the back-end, l
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Hi, I tried to build a canadian cross with Configured with
> --build=x86_64-linux-gnu
> --host=i686-w64-mingw32
> --target=avr
>
> While the result appears to work under wine, I am getting the
> following error from ld in a non-LTO compile
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> On 19.07.2017 12:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, I tried to build a canadian cross with Configured with
>>> --build=x8
Status
==
It's time to do a GCC 7.2 release and thus please check if you have
backports for regression or wrong-code bugs pending. The plan is to
do GCC 7.2 RC1 mid next week and a release roughly a week after that.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
-
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Leslie Zhai wrote:
> Hi GCC developers,
>
> As ChangeLog-2013 mentioned by Bernd Schmidt: ... pass_ipa_lto_gimple_out
> ... Remove. Delete.
>
> there is no 'pass_ipa_lto_gimple_out' in lto-streamer-out.c any more.
>
> then how to migrate it for GCC v6.x? just like
On July 30, 2017 2:25:35 AM GMT+02:00, Jerry DeLisle
wrote:
>Can I get the contact info for someone who has write access to:
>
>ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/
>
>I would like to add two files there for testing of some patches to
>integrate
>OpenCoarrays into gfortran build.
>
>Help wil
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 31/07/17 17:12, Oleg Endo wrote:
>> On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 15:25 +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>> Around 2010, someone who used a code snipped that I published in
>>> a wiki, reported that the code didn't work and hang in an
>>> endless lo
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 6:00 PM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:12:12AM -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> On 8/1/17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:08:41AM -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> >> > Heh. I suspect -Os would benefit from a separate compilation pip
Status
==
The GCC 7 branch is now frozen for the upcoming release candidate
and release. All changes require release manager approval.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:50:14PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
>> I would not expect that to be good at all. With no optimisation (-O0),
>> gcc produces quite poor code - local variables are not put in registers
>> or "optimised away", the
A release candidate for GCC 7.2 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/gcc-7.2-RC-20170802/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 250819.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Please test it and repo
On August 3, 2017 5:32:40 PM GMT+02:00, Torvald Riegel
wrote:
>On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Torvald Riegel writes:
>> > On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> (1) Does the approach seem reasonable?
>> >>
>> >> (2) Would it be acce
On August 3, 2017 5:51:35 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Biener
wrote:
>On August 3, 2017 5:32:40 PM GMT+02:00, Torvald Riegel
> wrote:
>>On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Torvald Riegel writes:
>>> > On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Ric
On August 3, 2017 7:05:05 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>Torvald Riegel writes:
>> On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Torvald Riegel writes:
>>> > On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 14:09 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> >> (1) Does the approach seem reasonable?
>>
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On August 3, 2017 7:05:05 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>>Torvald Riegel writes:
>>>> On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:59 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>>&g
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Btw., I did this once to represent constrained expressions on
>> multi-dimensional arrays in SSA form. There control (aka loop) structure was
>> also implicit. Google
Due to a fix for PR81766 there is now a second release candidate for
GCC 7.2 available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7.2-RC-20170808/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 250958.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-unkno
On August 11, 2017 6:23:01 PM GMT+02:00, R0b0t1 wrote:
>I have checked a few of the mirrors listed on
>https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html. That page lists a few keys that
>releases might be signed by, but on all of the mirrors I checked I do
>not actually see any signed files. What am I missing?
On
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/08/2017 01:38 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> I was wondering if something needs to be done about the gcc.dg/guality tests.
>>
>> There are two main issues I see with these tests, one is that they are often
>> not run during testing and so failure
The GNU Compiler Collection version 7.2 has been released.
GCC 7.2 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 7 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 6.1 with more than 95 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This release is available from the FTP servers listed at:
Status
==
GCC 7.2 has been released and the branch is again open for regression
and documentation fixes. History makes us expect a GCC 7.3 release
at the end of this or the beginning of next year.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
---
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Ron wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:22:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 13 August 2017 at 19:20, Ron wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm looking for some clarification of how the __forced_unwind thread
>> > cancellation exceptions intersect with noexcept
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:23 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> For GCC 8, when --enable-checking=yes,rtl is used with x32 GCC,
> I got
>
> cc1plus: out of memory allocating 56137200 bytes after a total of
> 3139436544 bytes
> make[5]: *** [Makefile:1104: insn-extract.o] Error 1
> make[5]: *** Waiting for unfin
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 15 August 2017 at 11:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Ron wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:22:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>> On 13 August 2017 at 19:2
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Ron wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:31:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>> > On 15 August 2017 at 11:24, Richard Biener
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Tue, A
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Daniel Langr wrote:
> When compiling the following code:
>
> int* ptr = nullptr;
> delete ptr;
>
> GCC 7.1 on x86_64 generates a delete-operator-related call instruction in
> the resulting program with both -O2 and -O3 optimization flags. This is a
> nonsense piec
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:23 AM, R0b0t1 wrote:
> After downloading and verifying the releases on
> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/, I found that the maintainers used 1024 bit DSA
> keys with SHA1 content digests. 1024 bit keys are considered to be
> susceptible to realistic attacks, and SHA1 has been consi
On August 20, 2017 10:46:54 AM GMT+02:00, Aldy Hernandez
wrote:
>Hi folks.
>
>Calling wi::max_value() of a boolean_type creates a wide_int with all
>bits set, not just the least significant bit.
>
>tree type = boolean_type_node;
>wide_int x = wi::max_value (TYPE_PRECISION (type), TYPE_SIGN (type
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This is a heads-up that I am in the process of implementing the last
> of Jasons review comments on the dwarf2out parts of early LTO debug
> support. I hope to post final patches early next week after thoroughly
> re-testing everyt
I assume the underlying
>hwi_with_prec must be stored with sign extension.
>
>Is this what you had in mind, or would you prefer the sign extension
>in the wi::int_traits decompose routine?
>
>Or somewhere else entirely ;-).
Richard?
>Thanks.
>Aldy
>
>On Sun, Aug 20, 2017
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> > On Fri, 12 May 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> This is a heads-up that I am in the process of implementing the last
> >> of Jasons review comments on the dwarf2out parts of early
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Michael Clark wrote:
> Dear GCC folk,
>
>
> # Issue Background
>
> We’re investigating an issue with redundant sign-extension instructions being
> emitted with the riscv backend. Firstly I would like to state that riscv is
> possibly a unique backend with respect
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm looking at tree-ssa-threadbackward.c, where we pass around a lot
> of "vec" pointers representing a path through a
> flow graph.
>
> I'm wondering why we use va_gc, when AFAICT, the paths are local to
> the pass, and we can easi
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Michael Clark wrote:
>
>> On 30 Aug 2017, at 9:43 PM, Michael Clark wrote:
>>
diff --git a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
index ce632ae..25dd70f 100644
--- a/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
+++ b/gcc/simplify-rtx.c
@@ -1503,6 +1503,10 @@ simp
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> I understand the need for .quick_push(), when we know the size of the
> allocated elements before hand, but do we really need to call the
> common variant safe_push? Can't we just call it push()?
>
> Or is there some magic C++ rule/idiom th
1101 - 1200 of 2616 matches
Mail list logo
