On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2016 12:54:23 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > It is currently difficult to debug offloading compiler invocations.
&
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> Hi !
> Currently I am trying to introduce new command line option -fgimple,
> for that I am adding this to c.opt
>
> diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c.opt b/gcc/c-family/c.opt
> index 4f86876..88e55c6 100644
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c.opt
> +++ b/gcc/c
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 4 May 2016 at 13:02, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> Hi !
>>> Currently I am trying to introduce new command line option -fgimple,
>&
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 4 May 2016 at 15:54, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 4 May 2016 at 13:02, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:41 AM, P
On Wed, 4 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 23 February 2016 at 21:49, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> > On 23 February 2016 at 17:31, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 22 February 2016 at 17
On May 6, 2016 3:14:03 PM GMT+02:00, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
>On 6 May 2016 at 16:09, Richard Biener
>wrote:
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>>> On 4 May 2016 at 15:54, Richard Biener
>wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:46 AM,
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm taking a stab at fixing PR 22141 by merging adjacent stores into wider
> stores in a late gimple pass.
>
> My current plan is to go through all the assignments in a basic block and
> keep track of
> LHS expressions that are C
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Claudiu Zissulescu
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been trying the following simple test case on latest gcc, and it seems
> to produce unwanted unaligned accesses for bit-fields.
>
> Test cases:
>
> struct lock_chain {
> unsigned int irq_context: 2,
> depth: 6,
>
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Claudiu Zissulescu
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been trying the following simple test case on latest gcc, and it seems
>> to produce unwanted unaligned access
On Wed, 11 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 6 May 2016 at 17:20, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > You can't simply use
> >
> > + offset = int_byte_position (field);
> >
> > as it can be placed at variable offset which will make int_by
Status
==
The GCC 5 branch is currently open for regression and documentation fixes.
I plan to do a release candidate of GCC 5.4 at the end of next week
followed by a release at the beginning of June.
This is a good time to look through your assigned bugs looking for
patches you might want
On Wed, 18 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 17 May 2016 at 18:36, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 6 May 2016 at 17:20, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> >
> >> > You can't simply use
&
On Thu, 19 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 18 May 2016 at 19:38, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 May 2016 at 18:36, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 11 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote
Hi,
The GCC 5 branch is frozen now in preparation for a GCC 5.4 release candidate.
All changes require release manager approval until after the GCC 5.4 release.
Thanks,
Richard.
The first release candidate for GCC 5.4 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5.4.0-RC-20160527
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 236809.
I have sofar bootstrapped the release candidate on x86_64-suse-linux-gnu.
Please test the release candidate
On May 29, 2016 10:47:05 AM GMT+02:00, "Dominique d'Humières"
wrote:
>Richard,
>
>> … If all goes well I'd like to release GCC 5.4 at the beginning of
>next
>> week.
>
>Would it be possible to apply the following patch
>
>---
>../5.4.0-RC/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/sanity-check-pure-c-1.c
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As David suggested in his rtlfe patch,
> this patch recognizes __GIMPLE keyword and switches to
> c_parser_parse_gimple_body by providing -fgimple option.
>
>
> diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
> index 4
On Tue, 31 May 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 27/05/16 12:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The first release candidate for GCC 5.4 is available from
> >
> > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5.4.0-RC-20160527
> >
> > and shortly its m
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 30 May 2016 at 20:45, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As David suggested in his rtlfe patch,
>> this patch recognizes __GIMPLE keyword and switches to
>> c_parser_parse_gimple_body by providing -fgimple option.
>>
>>
>> diff --git
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 08:54:36AM +1000, kugan wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> When I compile the following code with g++ using -fstrict-enums and -O2
>>
>> enum v
>> {
>> OK = 0,
>> NOK = 1,
>> };
>>
>> int foo0 (enum v a)
>> {
>> if (a > NO
Status
==
The GCC 5 branch is open again for regression and documentation fixes.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P10
P2 138 - 9
P3 20 + 7
P4
The GNU Compiler Collection version 5.4 has been released.
GCC 5.4 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 5 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 5.3 with more than 147 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This release is available from the FTP servers listed at:
hasing asserts
/ assumptions
of some part of the compiler and in this process understand GCC some more ;)
Richard.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Prasad Ghangal
>
> On 31 May 2016 at 15:57, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wr
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Alexander Cherepanov
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> If a variable of type _Bool contains something different from 0 and 1 its
> use amounts to UB in gcc and clang. There is a couple of examples in [1]
> ([2] is also interesting).
>
> [1] https://github.com/TrustInSoft/tis-interpr
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Cherepanov
wrote:
> On 2016-06-08 10:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Alexander Cherepanov
>> wrote:
>
> [skip]
>>>
>>> B
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 6 June 2016 at 15:49, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patch parses simple assignment statement
>>>
&
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Sameera Deshpande
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> This is with reference to our discussion at GNU Tools Cauldron 2015 regarding
> my talk titled "Improving the effectiveness and generality of GCC
> auto-vectorization." Further to our prototype implementation of the conce
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Sameera Deshpande
> wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> This is with reference to our discussion at GNU Tools Cauldron 2015
>> regarding my talk titled "Improving the effective
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi Richi,
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> > the following patch switches download_prerequesites to use ISL 0.16.1
> > (just put that into infrastructure/).
> >
> > I've verified it works
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Sameera Deshpande
wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2016 05:45 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Sameera Deshpande
>>> wro
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I modified Aexander's test case a bit, and found something
> unexpected, which looks like a GCC-BUG to me:
>
> cat test.c
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> int main()
> {
> long double d0, d;
>
> memcpy(&d0,
> "\x00\x00\x00\x00\x0
Hi Richard,
>>
>> Please follow the link for github repository -
>> https://github.com/PrasadG193/gcc_gimple_fe
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Prasad
>>
>>
>> On 15/06/2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>&
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working on a tree-ssa pass to implement PR 22141, a pass that merges
> adjacent stores.
> I've gotten to the point where I can identify the adjacent accesses, merge
> them into a single value
> and am now working on emitting
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For handling PHI, it expects cfg to be built before. So I was
> wondering how are we going to handle this? Do we need to build cfg
> while parsing only?
For handling PHIs we need to have a CFG in the sense that the GIMPLE PHI
data s
On June 29, 2016 6:20:29 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>On 18 June 2016 at 12:02, Prasad Ghangal
>wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tried hacking pass manager to execute only given passes. For this I
>> am adding new member as opt_pass *custom_pass_list to the function
>> structure to store passe
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 29 June 2016 at 22:15, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On June 29, 2016 6:20:29 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>>On 18 June 2016 at 12:02, Prasad Ghangal
>>>wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 29 June 2016 at 12:42, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> For handling PHI, it expects cfg to be built before. So I was
>>&g
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
> On 02.07.2016 18:12, squidmob...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>>
>> 02 jul 2016
>>
>> i tried to build and install gcc, and i ran into a problem. your
>> docs suggest isl acts as an OPTIONAL package for optimizations.
>> however, i could not build g
b_2: a_2, bb_3: a_3);
> a_1 = a_1 + 1;
> return;
> }
>
The issue is probably you lower PHIs after cleanup_tree_cfg is run which may
end up removing labels. Or it is cleanup_dead_labels in build_gimple_cfg.
Richard.
>
>
>
> On 1 July 2016 at 17:33, Richard Biener wrote:
>
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 4 July 2016 at 15:17, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> In this patch, I am passing labels and vars with internal function and
>>> handling them in
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 30 June 2016 at 17:10, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 29 June 2016 at 22:15, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On June 29, 2016 6:20:29 PM GMT+02:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Sameera Deshpande
wrote:
>
> From: Sameera Deshpande [sameera.deshpa...@imgtec.com]
> Sent: 20 June 2016 11:37:58
> To: Richard Biener
> Cc: Matthew Fortune; Rich Fuhler; Prachi Godbole; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; J
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 6 July 2016 at 14:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 30 June 2016 at 17:10, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Pra
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 8 July 2016 at 13:13, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 6 July 2016 at 14:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Pras
Status
==
The GCC 4.9 branch is still open for regression and documentation fixes
but given GCC 6.2 is close it's about time to close the branch with
a last release from it. Thus in the next week I plan to do a RC
for GCC 4.9.4 following with a release and the branch closing game.
Please co
On July 18, 2016 8:28:15 PM GMT+02:00, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
>On 15 July 2016 at 16:13, Richard Biener
>wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 8 July 2016 at 13:13, Richard Biener
>wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at
On July 18, 2016 11:05:58 PM GMT+02:00, David Malcolm
wrote:
>On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 00:52 +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>> On 19 July 2016 at 00:25, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> > On July 18, 2016 8:28:15 PM GMT+02:00, Prasad Ghangal <
>> > prasad.ghan...@gmai
On July 20, 2016 2:01:18 AM GMT+02:00, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>Hi,
> I noticed that ubsan testsuite sometimes has failures due to dejagnu
>buffer gets full and we no longer match on the output any more.
>As you can see from the .log file:
>/data1/jenkins/workspace/BuildThunderX_native_gcc_6/gcc/gcc
On July 20, 2016 9:18:09 AM GMT+02:00, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
wrote:
>
>Richard Biener writes:
>
>> On July 20, 2016 2:01:18 AM GMT+02:00, Andrew Pinski
> wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>> I noticed that ubsan testsuite sometimes has failures due to
>dejagnu
>>&g
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 19 July 2016 at 11:04, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On July 18, 2016 11:05:58 PM GMT+02:00, David Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 00:52 +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>>> On 19 July 2016
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 20 July 2016 at 11:34, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 19 July 2016 at 11:04, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On July 18, 2016
S_DEFAULT_DEF (arg))
>arg_bb = single_succ (ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN (cfun));
> else
>gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (arg));
>
> Presumably it should be:
> arg_bb = gimple_bb (SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (arg)) ?
Looks like so. Bill should know.
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
>
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 07/25/16 04:14, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> I've just analyzed PR68080, which exposes 2 interesting problems we have:
>>
>> 1) Majority of instrumented profiling code is not thread-safe, for
>> instance edge profiler:
>>
>> P
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 07/25/16 08:28, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>> I'm also surprised about it :) Let's start without invention of a new
>> flag, I'll work on that.
>
>
> As using atomic add doesn't result in a change to the libgcov interface or
> structures, that
The 4.9 branch is now frozen for the final GCC 4.9.4 release, I will
announce GCC 4.9.4 RC1 once it has built.
Richard.
A release candidate for the last release from the GCC 4.9 branch,
GCC 4.9.4, is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9.4-RC-20160726/
and shortly its mirrors.
I have sofar bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Please test it and report any
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 27 July 2016 at 00:20, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>> On 20 July 2016 at 18:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 20 July 201
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> Hi all. Don't want to be a noodge but is there any info on a timeline
> for the 6.2 release?
>
> I'm planning a major tools upgrade (from GCC 4.9.2) and I've been kind
> of putting it off until 6.2 is out so I can jump to that... but the
> nati
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> Thanks,
> Prasad
>
>
> On 29 July 2016 at 06:56, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On 29 July 2016 at 00:01, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>> On 27 July 2016 at 14:22, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to replace c_parser_paren_condition (parser) in
> c_parser_gimple_if_stmt by c_parser_gimple_paren_condition (parser) as
> described in the patch
>
> I am trying test case
> void __GIMPLE () foo ()
> {
> int a;
> bb_2:
>
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.9.4 has been released.
GCC 4.9.4 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 4.9 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 4.9.3 with more than 159 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This is also the last release from the GCC 4.9 bra
After the GCC 4.9.4 release the GCC 4.9 branch is now closed. Please
refrain from committing to it from now on.
Thanks,
Richard.
> gccadmin account, the version in SVN already had the change)
> and removed traces of this snapshot from gcc.gnu.org.
Thanks,
Richard.
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 2 August 2016 at 14:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am trying to replace c_parser_paren_condition
Status
==
The GCC 6 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes.
We are close to a GCC 6.2 release now with a release candidate
expected at the end of next or the beginning of the week after.
Please go over your assigned bugs and see whether some of the
fixes you have done on trunk
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 4 August 2016 at 18:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 2 August 2016 at 14:29, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 1,
in_late_binary_op = saved;
cgraph_node::finalize_function (current_function_decl, false);
+ set_cfun (NULL);
+ current_function_decl = NULL;
timevar_pop (tv);
return;
}
Richard.
>
> On 9 August 2016 at 14:37, Richard Biener wro
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/14/2016 01:57 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 01:23:16AM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm experimenting with ways to optimize wine (x86 target only) and I
>>> believe
>>> I can shrink wine's total text size by
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 11 August 2016 at 15:58, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> In this patch I am trying to parse gimple call. But I am getting weird
>>> gimple dump fo
On August 16, 2016 7:11:26 PM GMT+02:00, Thomas Koenig
wrote:
>What would it take to use an LTO-enabled version of gfortran?
>
>It could turn out to be quite useful for speeding up programs,
>especially where I/O or array intrinsics are used.
>
>I also expect many issues to surface where libgfort
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Am 16.08.2016 um 20:57 schrieb Richard Biener:
>>
>> On August 16, 2016 7:11:26 PM GMT+02:00, Thomas Koenig
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What would it take to use an LTO-enabled version of gfortran?
>>&
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I run configure with "--program-suffix=6", I get gcc6, gfortran6, etc.
> When ldd looks for libgcc.so.1 on FreeBSD, she finds the wrong one.
>
> % cat foo.f90
> program foo
>print *, 'Hello'
> end program
> % gfortran6 -o z foo.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Steven G. Kargl
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 09:25:41AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 18 August 2016 at 08:59, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > No, but you can try --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
>>
>> But be aware that fo
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 16 August 2016 at 14:10, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 11 August 2016 at 15:58, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 11
Status
==
GCC 6.2 has been released, the GCC 6 branch is now open
for regression and documentation fixes again.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P10
P2 124 - 3
P3
The GNU Compiler Collection version 6.2 has been released.
GCC 6.2 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 6 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 6.1 with more than 110 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This release is available from the FTP servers listed at:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> Is there a reason there's no changes.html for GCC 7 at this point?
>
> None, apart from me missing it and http://gcc.gnu.org/releasing.html
> as well.
We've been creating those lazily over the la
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Jérôme Kunegis wrote:
> Dear GCC Web team
>
>
> I just wanted to let you know that on
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/
>
> the link to the gcc-6.2 documentation links to the gcc-6.1 documentation
Thanks, fixed.
Richard.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jérôme
>
>
> --
> Dr. Jérôme
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> I was trying to have a look at PR35503.
> The attached patch tries to warn when an argument is passed to a
> restrict-qualified parameter
> and the argument could alias with other argument.
>
> For the following test-case:
> int f2(i
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was considering changing the implementation of _mm_loadu_pd in x86's
> emmintrin.h to avoid a builtin. Here are 3 versions:
>
> typedef double __m128d __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16),
> __may_alias__));
> typedef double __m128
l
suspects would be an update from the we-rewrite-the-vectorizer
folks and ideas about how to improve cost modeling.
If there's no strong interest in any of the above we can schedule
stuf as needed at the Cauldron itself as well.
Thanks,
Richard.
--
Richard Biener
SUSE LINUX Gmb
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> There appears to be a redundant second assignmeent bb_copy = NULL in
> free_copy_original_tables(). I suppose it should be
> bb_original = NULL instead ?
> I found this mentioned on a blog "Bugs found in gcc with help of PVS studio":
> http://
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I trimmed the CC list -- I'm looking for advice about debugging a lto1
> ICE.
>
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:05:59 +, Joseph Myers
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:23:18 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > I trimmed the CC list -- I'm looking for advice about debugging
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and I've
> been playing with folding arbitrary range expressions, which I expect fold()
> to ahem...fold.
>
> I'm surprised that even seemingly simple trees can't be folded aft
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 09:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:25:30AM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks. I'm working on better range information with Macleod, and I've
>>> been playing with folding arbitrary rang
On September 14, 2016 6:39:14 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 09/14/2016 08:08 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 09/14/2016 09:33 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez
>wrote:
>>>> Hi folks. I'm working on bette
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>
>> It's what match-and-simplify does as well.
>>
>> I question the need to build GENERIC here though. M-a-s happily gets you
>> a simplified expressio
On September 15, 2016 6:21:34 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 09/15/2016 02:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's what match-
; On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:43:30 +0200, I wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:23:18 +0200, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:05:59 +, Joseph Myers
>> > > wrot
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Swati Rathi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We want to fetch fields of a record type from the formal arguments of a
> function.
> For a RECORD_TYPE, we fetch the fields using TYPE_FIELDS.
>
> In the program 471.omnetpp (from the SPEC CPU2006 benchmark suite), we
> encountered
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
>> That's what I was afraid of: for example, I can't tell if it holds for
>> all GCC configurations (back ends), that complex types' component types
>> will always match one of the already existing
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:59:16 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:43:30 +0200, I wrote:
>> >> On W
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:18:35 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > --- gcc/tree-core.h
>> > +++ gcc/tree-core.h
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I'm seeing a number of failures in different tests in the tree-prof
> directory when I run make check in parallel none of which are
> reproducible with -j1. I don't see anything about in Bugzilla or
> in recent test results. Has anyone notic
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Sep 22 2016, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
>> for RTEMS we use linker sets to initialize the system. The following code
>> worked up to GCC 6, but no longer in GCC 7:
>>
>> typedef void ( *rtems_sysinit_handler )( void );
>>
>> typedef struct
On September 22, 2016 5:20:56 PM GMT+02:00, paul.kon...@dell.com wrote:
>
>> On Sep 22, 2016, at 11:16 AM, David Brown
>wrote:
>>
>> On 22/09/16 16:57, paul.kon...@dell.com wrote:
>>>
On Sep 22, 2016, at 6:17 AM, David Brown
>wrote:
...
Your trouble is that your two pointer
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi Richard!
>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:25:01 +0200, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:18:35 +0200, Richard Biener
>&g
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Marcin Noga wrote:
> Hello.
> I just starting their adventure with the GNU GCC.
> Successfully compiled binutils and gcc 6.2.0 for FR30-elf target.
> In an environment Msys2 under Windows 10.
> Configuration binutils:
>
> ../../src/binutils-2.27/configure --target=
On October 7, 2016 6:49:39 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
>While processing the (p += i) expression below to validate the bounds
>of the pointer in I call get_range_info for i (in tree-object-size.c).
>The function returns the following VR_RANGE: [2147483648, -2147483649]
>rather than the expec
301 - 400 of 2613 matches
Mail list logo
