On July 9, 2018 9:19:11 PM GMT+02:00, e...@thyrsus.com wrote:
>Last time I did a comparison between SVN head and the git conversion
>tip they matched exactly. This time I have mismatches in the following
>files.
>
>libtool.m4
>libvtv/ChangeLog
>libvtv/configure
>libvtv/testsuite/lib/libvtv.exp
>lt
On July 9, 2018 10:20:39 PM GMT+02:00, "Eric S. Raymond"
wrote:
>Richard Biener :
>> 12 hours from remote I guess? The subversion repository is available
>through rsync so you can create a local mirror to work from (we've been
>doing that at suse for years)
>
&
On July 10, 2018 5:42:40 PM GMT+02:00, Qing Zhao wrote:
>Hi, David,
>
>thanks a lot for your information. very helpful.
>
>specifically, I am mostly interested in the inline report part of the
>opt-info:
>
>1. what’s the current status of inlining report through opt-info?
>(with the upstream GCC
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:41 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Following on from:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00603.html
>
> this patch is an RFC to mention references in the C++ coding conventions.
> It allows const references anywhere they're useful but only allows
> non
Status
==
The GCC 8 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes. We
intend to release GCC 8.2 soon starting with a release candidate
mid to end of next week. This gives you some time to go over your
assigned regression bug reports and consider backports.
There is currently one P
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:19 AM Michael Ploujnikov
wrote:
>
> On 2018-07-04 04:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:09 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/03/2018 11:55 AM, Michael Ploujnikov wrote:
> >>> On 2018-07-03 12:46 PM, Rich
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:48 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>
>
> On 07/16/2018 04:19 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Aldy Hernandez writes:
> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:41 PM Jonathan Wakely
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 11:41, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> +Only use non-con
On July 16, 2018 4:30:42 PM GMT+02:00, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>On 07/16/2018 03:23 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> For purpose of --coverage I would like to distinguish lambda
>functions
>> among DECL_ARTIFICIAL functions. Currently, cp-tree.h provides macro:
>>
>> /* Test if FUNCTION_DECL i
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:30 PM Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 2018, at 3:12 PM, U.Mutlu wrote:
> >
> > Paul Koning wrote on 07/13/2018 08:56 PM:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 13, 2018, at 2:52 PM, U.Mutlu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Paul Koning wrote on 07/13/2018 08:27 PM:
> I'm trying to see i
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 5:20 AM Michael Ploujnikov
wrote:
>
> On 2018-07-16 04:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:19 AM Michael Ploujnikov
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2018-07-04 04:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:35 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 07/16/2018 06:09 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > On 07/16/2018 12:04 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> Just use a spare bit in function_decl, then we can simply stream it.
> >
> > If there's one
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:08 PM Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >
> > There is not enough information for anyone to help you without
> > reproducing the issue which is maybe too m
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:36 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:08 PM Paul Koning wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 17, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Richard Biener
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> ...
> > >
> > > There is
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I've recently touched AWK option generate machinery and it's quite unpleasant
> to make any adjustments. My question is simple: can we starting using a
> scripting
> language like Python and replace usage of the AWK scripts? It's pro
Status
==
The GCC 8 branch is frozen for preparation of the GCC 8.2 release.
All changes to the branch now require release manager approval.
Previous Report
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-07/msg00194.html
A release candidate for GCC 8.2 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.2.0-RC-20180719/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 262876.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Please test it and repor
On July 20, 2018 7:59:10 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
>On 07/20/2018 06:19 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
>> Hi All ,
>>
>> We are looking at the C sample i.e
>>
>> extern int i,j;
>>
>> int test()
>> {
>> while(1)
>> { i++;
>> j=20;
>> }
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> command used :(gcc 8.1
On July 21, 2018 4:04:51 AM GMT+02:00, e...@thyrsus.com wrote:
>That light at the end of the tunnel turned out to be an oncoming train.
>
>Until recently I thought the conversion was near finished. I'd had
>verified clean conversions across trunk and all branches, except for
>one screwed-up branch
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:04 PM Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> > However, even if you could "git log --grep" the commit messages, I assume
> > your
> > current use is grepping for function names and such, right? Being able to
> > grep
> > a commit message
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 1:39 PM Eric S. Raymond
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 09:26:10AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Can you summarize what is wrong with our current git mirror which was IIRC
> > created by git-svn importing?
>
> git-svn tends to do subtle d
On July 24, 2018 5:50:33 PM GMT+02:00, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Richard Biener
>wrote:
>>
>> Status
>> ==
>>
>> The GCC 8 branch is frozen for preparation of the GCC 8.2 release.
>> All changes to the b
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 24/07/18 17:30, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On July 24, 2018 5:50:33 PM GMT+02:00, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Richard Biener
> >> wrote:
> >>>
&g
On August 12, 2018 12:30:26 PM GMT+02:00, zet wrote:
>Hello, everyone.
>Sorry to disturb you, but this question confused me several days, I
>have
>searched the GCC source code cannot find the answers.
>
>I know we can distinguish the different DECL tree using DECL_UID in a
>translation unit. But w
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:44 AM Liu Hao wrote:
>
> 在 2018-08-15 12:48, Jeff Law 写道:
> > I just don't think anyone's ever bothered to catch this case. I believe
> > there is a BZ which touches on this issue.
> >
>
> Yes, here it is: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655
>
> This PR us
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:53 AM Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> On Aug 20 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > Btw, I can't find wording in the standards that nullptr + 1 is
> > invoking undefined behavior,
> > that is, that pointer arithmetic is only allowed on pointer
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 1:05 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:53 AM Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 20 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >>> Btw, I can't find
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 5:21 PM Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hello Alfonso,
>
> On Sat, Aug 18 2018, ALFONSO LUIS CASTANO MARIN wrote:
> > Dear Martin,
> >
> > I am interested in contributing to GCC to speed-up the compiler and I
> > thought that the issues related with RTL are very interesting. I won
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:16 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> PR 87059 - internal compiler error: in set_value_range, at
> tree-vrp.c:289, is apparently due to an argument type mismatch
> in a MIN_EXPR introduced by expand_builtin_strncmp().
>
> The function calls c_strlen() to compute the length of th
Status
==
It's time for the GCC 9.4 release, I therefore plan to do a GCC 9.4
release candidate on May 19th and the release about a week after
that if no unforseen problems arise.
We have one P1 regression, PR98032 which is a C++ frontend issue.
Please make sure to backport regression fixes
On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> I was just wondering if second (and higher) order hoistings may defeat
> the "AVAIL_OUT in at least one successor heuristic" ?
>
> For eg:
> bb2:
> if (cond1) goto bb3 else goto bb4;
>
> bb3:
> if (cond2) goto bb5 else goto bb6;
>
>
On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 15:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 6 May 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Richard,
> > > I was just wondering if second (and higher) order hoistings may defe
On Tue, 11 May 2021, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We are looking to implement saturation support in the compiler. The aim is to
> recognize both Scalar and Vector variant of typical saturating expressions.
>
> As an example:
>
> 1. Saturating addition:
>char sat (char a, char b)
>
; to introduce compiler-generated saturating operations.
>
> RTL already has per-operation saturation such as ss_plus/us_plus,
> ss_minus/us_minus, ss_neg/us_neg, ss_mult/us_mult, ss_div,
> ss_ashift/us_ashift and ss_abs. I think we should do the same
> in gimple, using internal
On Wed, 12 May 2021, Tamar Christina wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 12:45 PM
> > To: Tamar Christina
> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Sandiford ;
> > Jakub Jelinek
> > Subject
Status
==
The GCC 9 branch is now frozen for the upcoming GCC 9.4 release.
I will announce a first release candidate shortly.
All changes require release manager approval now.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- --
The first release candidate for GCC 9.4 is available from
https://sourceware.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9.4.0-RC-20210519/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
8091c46cf736124a106922ddfd1fdb99f33b0241.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate
on {x86_64
On Wed, 19 May 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 9.4 is available from
>
> https://sourceware.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9.4.0-RC-20210519/
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
> 8091c46cf736124a106922ddfd1fdb99
On Fri, 21 May 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Sorry, just pushed 3 patches before I noticed this. They're safe but not
> critical, should I back them out?
They look safe indeed, so let's keep them in.
Richard.
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 4:06 AM Richard Biener wrote
A second release candidate for GCC 9.4 is available from
https://sourceware.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9.4.0-RC-20210528/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
ebfe8b28d40746ff33724bd5b9ade2552e619213, containing a build fix
with recent kernel headers and fixes for a few C+
Status
==
The GCC 9 branch is again open for regression and documentation fixes.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1
P2 304
P3 26 + 3
P4 173 -
The GNU Compiler Collection version 9.4 has been released.
GCC 9.4 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 9 branch containing important
fixes for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 9.3 with more than 190 bugs
fixed since the previous release.
This release is available from the WWW and FTP servers
I'm trying to merge
(define_insn "avx_addsubv4df3"
[(set (match_operand:V4DF 0 "register_operand" "=x")
(vec_merge:V4DF
(minus:V4DF
(match_operand:V4DF 1 "register_operand" "x")
(match_operand:V4DF 2 "nonimmediate_operand" "xm"))
(plus:V4DF (
On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 03:21:05PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > but the difficulty is in the (const_int ..) operand to (vec_merge ..).
> > I've tried sth like
> >
> > (define_mode_attr addsub_cst [(V4DF "(co
Status
==
The GCC 11 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes.
It's time for a GCC 11.2 release and we are aiming for a release
candidate in about two weeks which would result in the GCC 11.2
release about three months after GCC 11.1.
Two weeks give you ample time to care for i
On Wed, 14 Jul 2021, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:00 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >
> > Status
> > ==
> >
> > The GCC 11 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes.
> > It's time for a GCC 11.2 release and we a
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:00 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >
> > Status
> > ==
> >
> > The GCC 11 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes.
> > It's time for a GCC 11.2 release and we a
Status
==
The GCC 11 branch is now frozen for the upcoming GCC 11.2 release.
All changes require release manager approval now.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1
P2 260 - 12
The first release candidate for GCC 11.2 is available from
https://sourceware.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.2-RC-20210721/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
076930b9690ac3564638636f6b13bbb6bc608aea.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate
on x86_64-
Status
==
The GCC 11.2.0 tarballs have been generated and uploaded and the
GCC 11 branch is again open for regression and documentation fixes.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1
P2
The GNU Compiler Collection version 11.2 has been released.
GCC 11.2 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 11 branch containing important
fixes for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 11.1 with more than 95 bugs
fixed since the previous release.
This release is available from the WWW and FTP servers
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> While implementing PR56263 (Strict address-space checking for AVR), I
> encountered the problem that pointer casts with address spaces are always
> expanded as const_int 0.
>
> The problem occurs if the attached patch that implements PR5626
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>> While implementing PR56263 (Strict address-space checking for AVR), I
>> encountered the problem that pointer casts with address spaces are always
>> ex
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>>> While implementing PR56263 (Strict address-space check
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>> Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Richard Biener
>>>> wrote:
>>>>&g
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:24 AM, xunxun wrote:
> 于 2013/1/29 星期二 19:24, Richard Biener 写道:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Kenny Simpson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There have been quite a few fixes on the 4.7 branch since 4.7.2 was
>>> released 4 month
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:03 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Will wrote:
>> James Lemke codesourcery.com> writes:
>>
>>> I have completed the binutils submission for VLE.
>>> I am working on the gcc submission. The test results are looking good
>>> now. Patches wil
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2013.03.25 at 08:06 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>> On 2013.03.24 at 20:53 +0100, gcc_mailingl...@abwesend.de wrote:
>> >
>> > is it useful to compile gcc 4.8.0 with the lto option?
>>
>> If you want a (slightly) faster compiler
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2013.03.25 at 14:11 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
>> wrote:
>> > On 2013.03.25 at 08:06 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>> >> On 201
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Lawrence" == Lawrence Crowl writes:
>
> Lawrence> Hm. I haven't thought about this deeply, but I think SFINAE may
> Lawrence> not be less of an issue because it serves to remove candidates
> Lawrence> from potential instantiation, and gd
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov
wrote:
> Hi,
> We noticed some performance gains if we are not using jump over some
> simple switch statements. Here is the idea: Check whether the switch
> statement can be expanded with conditional instructions. In that case
> jump tables shou
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Frederic Riss wrote:
> I was playing with adding support of the various modes of widening
> multiplies on my backend, and hit some restrictions in the expansion
> code that I couldn't explain to myself. These restrictions only impact
> the signed by unsigned versio
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Frederic Riss wrote:
> While working on having the divisions by constants optimized by my GCC
> targeting, I realized that whatever *muldi3_highpart my backend
> provides, it would never be used because of the bounds checks that
> expmed.c does on the cost arrays.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Nikhil Patil wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am trying to understand the points-to analysis ("pta") ipa pass, but
> I am not able to match the information generated by the pass and that
> in structure "SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO".
>
> For the code segment,
>
> --
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:48 AM, chenzhi wrote:
> Dear gcc-developers,
>
> The attachment is a sample source code that shows an error of
> gcc-optimization(O2, O3 and Os).
> gcc version 4.4.7 20120313
Please use bugzilla to file bugreports. Note that I get the exact same
output with official GC
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 2013-03-28 07:57 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> Does gengetype works with inheritance now? I could not
>> find anything to that effect in the documentation.
>>
> No. The plan is to get rid of gengtype by implementing manual markers
> (h
Diego Novillo wrote:
>On Thu Mar 28 08:53:03 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>
>> Eh - in fact you _promised_ to do that in trade for accepting the C++
>> conversion!
>> Never trust promises from google ... *sigh*
>
>
>You need to calm down.
Status
==
The GCC 4.7 branch is ready for a release candidate of GCC 4.7.3
which I will do tomorrow if no serious issue shows up until then.
The branch is frozen now, all changes require release manager approval
until the final release of GCC 4.7.3 which should happen roughly
one week after t
hard.
> --joel
> RTEMS
>
> Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> Status
> ==
>
> The GCC 4.7 branch is ready for a release candidate of GCC 4.7.3
> which I will do tomorrow if no serious issue shows up until then.
> The branch is frozen now, all changes require releas
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 10:00 PM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>>
>>
>> This will be true regardless of communication method. There is so little
>> opportunity for parallelism that anything more than 4-8 local cores is
>> pretty much wasted. On a 4-core machine, more
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the GCC wiki says:
>
> “We will periodically pick a stable version of GCC, and require that that
> version of GCC be able to build all versions of GCC up to and including
> the next stable version. E.g., we may decide that all newer
GCC 4.7.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
The first release candidate for GCC 4.7.3 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.3-RC-20130404
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 197469.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 03:23:36PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Status
> > ==
> >
> > The GCC 4.7 branch is ready for a release candidate of GCC 4.7.3
> > which I will do tomorrow if no serious issue
David Edelsohn wrote:
>Richi,
>
>The GCC documentation for fp-contract is a little confusing and I'm
>not sure what was intended. The last sentences says:
>
>"-ffp-contract=on enables floating-point expression contraction if
>allowed by the language standard. This is currently not implemented
>a
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:21:27PM +, Evgeny Gavrin wrote:
>> Is there any simple way to add support of custom pragma-directive for C/C++ =
>> front-ends?
>> I'm trying to avoid lots of modifications on every level from pa=
>> rser
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>
> On Apr 9, 2013, at 22:19, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
>> Some numbers, 16-core 64-thread POWER7, c,c++,fortran bootstrap:
>> -j6: real57m32.245s
>> -j60: real38m18.583s
>
> Yes, these confirm mine. It doesn't make sense to look a
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have this problem in private backend, but it is reproducible on
> x86-gcc also, so I suppose core GCC probems. Lets consider simple
> example:
>
> unsigned int buffer[10];
>
> __attribute__((noinline)) void
> myFunc(unsigne
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I am running:
>
> gcc -Wa,--some-custom-option
>
> everything is ok.
>
> But when I am running:
>
> gcc -flto -Wa,--some-custom-option
>
> then this option is not passed to assembler, when lto wrapper calls
> it. I need
Status
==
GCC 4.7.3 has been released, the branch is now open again under the usual
release branch rules (regression and documentation fixes only).
Quality Data
Priority # Change from Last Report
--- ---
P10
P2
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.7.3 has been released.
GCC 4.7.3 is the first bug-fix release containing important fixes for
regressions and serious bugs in GCC 4.7.2 with over 118 bugs fixed since
the previous release. This release is available from the FTP servers
listed at:
http:/
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know if it is possible to get a database dump of the
> GCC Bugzilla instance for analytics?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
>
> Please let me know.
It's not possible. The database contains things such as username
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 11:18 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:51 +0100, Sofiane Naci wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Consider the following sequence, which computes 2 addresses to access an
>> > array:
>> >
>> > _2 = (long uns
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Andreas Krebbel
wrote:
> On 23/04/13 17:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 04/23/2013 04:45 PM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>> I was not able to reproduce the problem with head GCC. But I couldn't
>>> find anything which addresses the problem either. So I assume that a
>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 04:54 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am still having trouble with this and with figuring out how to
>> straighten out my PHI nodes. I have decided to try a slightly different
>> tack and see if I could create a routine that woul
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
> wrote:
>> What is right way to fix these? I saw one testcase that did
>>
>> typedef int int32_t __attribute__ ((__mode__ (__SI__)));
>>
>> Is this the right way to go?
>
> I like this. Pre
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:53 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> We have gimple_duplicate_sese_region for this. It may be not perfect though.
>> Eventually it should be changed to handle SEME regions as well and all
>> l
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:03:43AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> > On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
>> > wrote:
>> >
"Bin.Cheng" wrote:
>I suspect codes in prepare_decl_rtl:
>
>case VAR_DECL:
>case PARM_DECL:
>case RESULT_DECL:
> *ws = 0;
> obj = *expr_p;
>
> if (DECL_RTL_SET_P (obj))
>break;
>
> if (DECL_MODE (obj) == BLKmode)
>x = produce_memory_decl_rtl (obj, regno);
>
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Nikhil Patil wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 1. Which passes of gcc make use of points-to information in
> SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (or more precisely, pt_solution) in doing
> optimizations?
All passes that query the alias oracle (tree-ssa-alias.h) which is almost
all passes doing o
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Nikhil Patil wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Nikhil Patil
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> 1. Which passes of gcc make use of points-to informatio
I am facing several issues with the current hash_table API while
trying to improve what is currently the scev_info_hash_table_type
in tree-scalar-evolution.c. The issues with that hashtable are
1) it allocates GC memory for the entries but their lifetime
is short (call of instantiate_scev /
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Glad to see the push-back on this :-)
>
> reed kotler writes:
>> On 05/03/2013 01:06 AM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
>>> 2013/5/3 Chung-Ju Wu :
Or do you think 'naked' is still useful for some other cases in mips
porting?
You can
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 07:41 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>>
>> Evgeny Gavrin wrote:
>>>
>>> What do you think about support of OpenACC 1.0
>>> (http://www.openacc-standard.org/) in gcc?
>>
>>
>> I like the idea - though, I wonder whether OpenMP 4.0's "target"*
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> We're going to look at supporting HSA from GCC (which would make it more
>> or less trivial to also target openCL I think)
>
>
> For the friends of link-time optimization (LTO):
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> We're going to look at supporting HSA from GCC (which would make it more
>>> or less trivial to also target op
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:27 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> > On 05/06/2013 07:41 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Evgeny Gavrin wrote:
>&g
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 12:46 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> >> Richard Biener wrot
Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
>Another interesting use-case for OpenACC and OpenMP is mixing both
>standard
>annotations for the same loop:
> // Compute matrix multiplication.
>#pragma omp parallel for default(none) shared(A,B,C,size)
>#pragma acc kernels pcopyin(A[0:size][0:size],B[0:size][0:size])
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Gene Smith wrote:
> Could the -Og patches for 4.8 be back-ported to 4.7.3? Or is there important
> 4.8 dependencies that would make this not practicable?
>
> The patches to add -Og shown on gcc.patches list don't look extremely
> extensive.
>
> This would be for pe
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Back when these attributes were defined, we had no inter-procedural analysis
> or other fanciness, so I suspect we didn't consider the case where the
> annotated function only behaved as if it were pure or const. One important
> case is memo
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 11:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> Now - if there would ever be an architecture where special call-site
>> preparation
>> is required for a callee to write to global memory then marking a fun
1401 - 1500 of 2616 matches
Mail list logo
