On 2013-09-18 19:37, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
On 09/17/2013 08:12 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Committed to the head.
Is this too radical to also go on the 4.8 branch?
We would need to discuss it on the RTEMS side but it
only impacts us if the multilib is there for sparc-elf
on 4.8.
Not quite. The p
On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 08:15 +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Christian Bruel wrote:
> > && (!can_create_pseudo_p () && REG_P (operands[0]) && REG_P (operands[1]))"
> >
> > is necessary ?
>
> It looks an another hack to allow the 2nd and 3rd alternatives only
> when reloading. If so, it might be a bit
Thanks Richard for the review.
On 18/09/13 18:55, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Kugan wrote:
Thanks Richard for the review.
On 16/09/13 23:43, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Kugan wrote:
[Snip]
+2013-09-17 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
+
+ * gimple-pretty-pri
On 09/18/2013 11:17 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/18/2013 10:24 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
I'm irritated by the member name uglification (e.g. equiv_stack_ with
trailing underscore). I know that's a certain style to mark private
members, but I think it'
Hello,
I did not touch the regular basic_string because Paulo usually says not to
touch it, but I could do it as well if wanted. I didn't add noexcept to
the debug string swap (and move assignments) because the regular
basic_string swap can currently throw if the allocators are distinct.
boo
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> This patch fixup the call graph edge targets during AutoFDO pass, so
> that when rebuilding call graph edges, it can find the correct callee.
>
> Bootstrapped and passed regression test. Benchmark tests on-going.
>
> Ok for google-4_8 branch?
>
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:14:16AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Please ensure that you use the correct version of autoconf to
> regenerate the files. I don't think that the same version of autoconf
> is used in all directories.
gcc is OK in this respect. autoconf-2.64 is used throughout. It's
This patch fixup the call graph edge targets during AutoFDO pass, so
that when rebuilding call graph edges, it can find the correct callee.
Bootstrapped and passed regression test. Benchmark tests on-going.
Ok for google-4_8 branch?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/Makefile.in
=
The Go frontend was using the wrong name for an method generated for an
embedded imported type with an unexported method. This is a kind of
unlikely case, but it could lead to name collisions in the assembly
code. I added a test case to the master Go repository, and it will come
into the gccgo te
Hi,
On 09/18/2013 09:23 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
Ping x3?
2013/9/11 Paul Pluzhnikov :
Ping x2?
Original message:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00394.html
I'm adding Ian in CC.
Paolo.
Christian Bruel wrote:
> && (!can_create_pseudo_p () && REG_P (operands[0]) && REG_P (operands[1]))"
>
> is necessary ?
It looks an another hack to allow the 2nd and 3rd alternatives only
when reloading. If so, it might be a bit cleaner to use a special
predicate like
;; Returns 1 if OP can be
I have now committed (Rev. 202725) a test case for that patch. (I
confirmed that it fails before Rev. 202609 and works now.)
See attachment.
(While trying to create a test case, I found another bug with defined
assignment; see PR fortran/58469.)
Tobias
PS: I still have to do the backporting
Hi,
> Il giorno 18/set/2013, alle ore 21:38, Paul Pluzhnikov
> ha scritto:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>
>> - The game with the variadic and the non-variadic __throw_out_of_range makes
>> me a little nervous. Let's just name the new one differently, like
>>
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>
>> > I'd also like us to not use member privatization in our classes, but
>> > that's not in the patch, but if we could agree on that it would be nice.
>
>> Member privatization is quite natural. What specifically do you not like
>> about th
When gccgo saw multiple identical unnamed structs with methods assigned
to interfaces that used those methods, it would emit multiple copies of
the interface method table, causing a duplicate symbol error from the
assembler. This patch fixes the bug. I added a test case to the master
testsuite th
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is the C FE counterpart of the C++ FE OpenMP 4.0 user defined
> reductions, as C has no templates, class inheritance, doesn't
> allow #pragma omp declare reduction in structs/unions, the implementation is
> significantly simpler.
>
> Josep
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> when generic model was introduced, the 32bit only CPUs was still common on the
> market. It would be stupid to tune 64bit code for CPUs that will never run
> it.
> We thus introduced two models - generic32 that was considering needs
> o
Committed as obvious, Rev. 202722.
Tobias
Index: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
===
--- gcc/fortran/ChangeLog (Revision 202713)
+++ gcc/fortran/ChangeLog (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
2013-09-18 Tobias Burnus
+ * expr.c (gfc_check_assi
This patch splits Android handling from libc selection and removes Android
handling from targets that don't support it.
The patch series was tested on various Linux and uClinux targets including arm,
bfin, c6x, m68k, mips, powerpc, x86, x86_64.
OK to apply?
Thanks,
--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
www.kugel
This patch consolidates definitions of TARGET_LIBC_HAS_FUNCTION and
TARGET_HAS_IFUNC_P hooks in linux.h from linux-android.h and uclinux.h files of
various architectures.
One caveat to consolidating definitions in linux.h is that both *-linux-* and
*-uclinux-* targets include config/linux.h, bu
This patch changes check in linux_has_ifunc_p() from TARGET_ANDROID to
OPTION_BIONIC. These two predicates are, currently, the same, but it is better
to check for a specific C library rather than operational environment the
library is commonly associated with.
The patch series was tested on va
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:17:35PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > I'd also like us to not use member privatization in our classes, but
> > > that's not in the patch, but if we could agree on that it would be nice.
> > Member privatization is quite natural. What specifically do you not like
> > a
Mechanical rename of functions.
The patch series was tested on various Linux and uClinux targets including arm,
bfin, c6x, m68k, mips, powerpc, x86, x86_64.
OK to apply?
--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
www.kugelworks.com
0002-Rename-functions-relating-to-libc-support-on-Linux-t.patch
Description: Binary d
Mechanical rename of files in preparation for splitting Android handling from
libc selection.
The patch series was tested on various Linux and uClinux targets including arm,
bfin, c6x, m68k, mips, powerpc, x86, x86_64.
OK to apply?
--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
www.kugelworks.com
0001-Rename-files-for-
Following recent breakage caused by adding nominal Android support to all
*linux* targets [*] this patch series cleans up libc selection for Linux
targets (-mglibc/-muclibc/-mbionic), splits libc selection logic from Android
support, and removes Android handling from targets that don't support i
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Bi
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> - The game with the variadic and the non-variadic __throw_out_of_range makes
> me a little nervous. Let's just name the new one differently, like
> __throw_out_of_range_var.
Replaced with __throw_out_of_range_fmt.
> - Please consistently u
Richard,
I am seeing ICEs in libstdc++ make check that I didn't see yesterday:
spawn /home/ppluzhnikov/Archive/gcc-svn/build/./gcc/xg++
-shared-libgcc -B/home/ppluzhnikov/Archive/gcc-svn/build/./gcc
-nostdinc++
-L/home/ppluzhnikov/Archive/gcc-svn/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
Ping x3?
2013/9/11 Paul Pluzhnikov :
> Ping x2?
>
> Original message:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00394.html
Thanks,
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
Yvan Roux working on porting LRA to AARCH64 reported that LRA does not
support macro HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED.
Here is the patch implementing such support. Yvan wrote me that the
patch solves the problem (removing some gcc testsuite failures).
The patch was bootstrapped on x86/x86-64.
Com
When the Go frontend converts a shortcut operator like && or || to an if
statement, it used the wrong type for the temporary variable. It always
used bool, but the operator could be using a named version of bool.
This matters when the type has methods. This patch fixes the problem.
Bootstrapped a
On 09/12/2013 02:27 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The following patch fixes
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58335
>
> It required to implement a new approach for elimination updates for
> insn frame_pointer = hard_frame_pointer + offset. The previous
> implementation used parsi
The following patch fixes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58438
The patch was successfully bootstrapped and tested on x86/x86-64.
Committed as rev. 202714.
2013-09-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/58438
* lra.c (lra): Clear lra_optional_reload_pseudos in u
Ok.
David
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> This patch disables SLP for AutoFDO.
>
> Bootstrapped and passed unittests.
>
> OK for google-4_8?
>
> Thanks,
> Dehao
>
> Index: gcc/opts.c
> ===
> --- gcc/opts.c (rev
On 09/17/2013 08:12 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Committed to the head.
Is this too radical to also go on the 4.8 branch?
We would need to discuss it on the RTEMS side but it
only impacts us if the multilib is there for sparc-elf
on 4.8.
Not quite. The problem is not GCC-4.8 vs. GCC-4.9, the probl
OK.
Jason
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/18/2013 10:24 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> >
> > I'm irritated by the member name uglification (e.g. equiv_stack_ with
> > trailing underscore). I know that's a certain style to mark private
> > members, but I think it's a bad style (like prefixing
On Sep 18, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> It occurred to me this morning that AC_PROG_CC_C_O only checks the C
> compiler, but we're generally using the C++ compiler for gcc now. So I
> think this was already all obsolete.
The reality is that checking the C compiler is likely enough on al
This patch disables SLP for AutoFDO.
Bootstrapped and passed unittests.
OK for google-4_8?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/opts.c
===
--- gcc/opts.c (revision 202709)
+++ gcc/opts.c (working copy)
@@ -1661,9 +1661,6 @@ common_handle_optio
On 09/18/2013 10:24 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
I'm irritated by the member name uglification (e.g. equiv_stack_ with
trailing underscore). I know that's a certain style to mark private
members, but I think it's a bad style (like prefixing variable names with
their type), and before it sets a prece
On 18 September 2013 17:00, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 09/18/2013 05:51 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> some more containers...
Great, thanks for working your way through all these!
>> In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
>> understand correctly
On 18 September 2013 17:27, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> On 09/18/2013 05:51 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
>>> understand correctly it is only because of syntax limitations for
>>> conste
Hi,
On 09/18/2013 05:51 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
some more containers...
In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
understand correctly it is only because of syntax limitations for
constexpr
functions and aborts before throwing, although the use of
_GLIBCXX_T
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 09/18/2013 05:51 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
understand correctly it is only because of syntax limitations for constexpr
functions and aborts before throwing, although the use of
_GLIBCX
Hello,
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> I put the attached patch through a bootstrap and regression test cycle on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. As expected no regressions. Installed onto the
> trunk.
>
> Thanks Trevor!
You missed one comment style nit, and some ChangeLog entry nits.
I'm
On 18 September 2013 16:51, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> some more containers...
>
> In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
> understand correctly it is only because of syntax limitations for constexpr
> functions and aborts before throwing, although the use of
> _
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Great. Tim, please complete the testing on -m32 etc, if everything goes
> well, just wait a day or so and commit.
Tested under -m32, -m64 and check-debug, and committed, with changing
the date of the new file to today.
Thank you!
--
Tim
Hello,
some more containers...
In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
understand correctly it is only because of syntax limitations for constexpr
functions and aborts before throwing, although the use of
_GLIBCXX_THROW_OR_ABORT is suspicious. In any case, I am not
Hi Oleg,
On 09/18/2013 02:59 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 09:55 +0200, Christian Bruel wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On 09/16/2013 07:10 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Hi Christian,
>>>
>>> Christian Bruel writes:
@@ -6893,11 +6894,14 @@ label:
;; reloading MAC subregs
Paolo> As I wrote in another reply, I suspect this breaks bootstrap with
Paolo> compilers that do not support "-c -o", if it is not broken yet.
It occurred to me this morning that AC_PROG_CC_C_O only checks the C
compiler, but we're generally using the C++ compiler for gcc now. So I
think this wa
Hi,
in this 4.8/4.9 Regression having to do with using declarations we ICE
at the gcc_assert in instantiate_type:
gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (rhs) == ADDR_EXPR
|| TREE_CODE (rhs) == COMPONENT_REF
|| really_overloaded_fn (rhs)
|| (flag_ms_extensions && TREE_CODE (
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> The patch is updated according to your comments. It is a basic support,
> which does not touch ifcombine and jump related optimizations yet.
>
> Current method is:
> 1) In fold-const, if HAVE_conditional_compare, set
> LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:13:25PM +0400, Michael V. Zolotukhin wrote:
> > As discussed earlier, I'd like to pass __OPENMP_TARGET__ argument to
> > all of GOMP_target{,_data,_update}, so that all those functions
> > can get at the offloading data section in the shared library or binary
> > making t
> As discussed earlier, I'd like to pass __OPENMP_TARGET__ argument to
> all of GOMP_target{,_data,_update}, so that all those functions
> can get at the offloading data section in the shared library or binary
> making the call, so that the first time they encounter such a call
> in the shared libr
I guess I can't really expect to gain an approval to import the
upstream libtool into gcc. Even *I* don't really trust me, although
having looked at it a little I think I could even update
libjava/libltdl. So how about just continuing the status quo and
applying a libtool patch that is already up
Hi all,
The recently added testcase gcc.c-torture/execute/pr58419.c uses a char
variable to count down with negative values.
But on some architectures (like arm) a char is by default unsigned,
causing the loop to be infinite.
I've committed the attached patch to explicitly label the variable
On 18/09/13 15:00, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On ARM targets that normally support LDRD/STRD there are tuning
> parameters that express the preference for using these instructions over
> LDM/STM. However, that's only a preference and when the architecture
> and tuning options differ (for example, t
On ARM targets that normally support LDRD/STRD there are tuning
parameters that express the preference for using these instructions over
LDM/STM. However, that's only a preference and when the architecture
and tuning options differ (for example, tuning for Cortex-A15 but using
the ARMv5 ISA) then
Ccing Uros. Changes in i386.md could be related to the fix for PR57954.
Thanks,
Igor
-Original Message-
From: Wei Mi [mailto:w...@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 2:51 AM
To: GCC Patches
Cc: David Li; Zamyatin, Igor
Subject: [PATCH] disable use_vector_fp_converts for m_CORE
Hi!
As discussed earlier, I'd like to pass __OPENMP_TARGET__ argument to
all of GOMP_target{,_data,_update}, so that all those functions
can get at the offloading data section in the shared library or binary
making the call, so that the first time they encounter such a call
in the shared library o
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:23:24PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Thanks, fixed in both FEs. Re-ran the ubsan testsuite. Ok now?
Ok, thanks.
Jakub
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:15:05PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:10:42PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > --- gcc/cp/typeck.c.mp 2013-09-18 14:00:14.303869196 +0200
> > +++ gcc/cp/typeck.c 2013-09-18 14:08:21.287770112 +0200
> > @@ -4884,7 +4884,7 @@ cp_build_binary_o
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:10:42PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> --- gcc/cp/typeck.c.mp2013-09-18 14:00:14.303869196 +0200
> +++ gcc/cp/typeck.c 2013-09-18 14:08:21.287770112 +0200
> @@ -4884,7 +4884,7 @@ cp_build_binary_op (location_t location,
>if (build_type == NULL_TREE)
> bu
Hi,
> (Side remark: That's Janus' email which didn't make it past GCC's mail
> server.)
... for whatever reason. I hope this one will make it through.
Fortran 2008 permits assignment to polymorphic variables with some
constraints. The patch, which was sitting in my tree, adds diagnost
As mentioned in the PR, we weren't properly using the SANITIZE_* flags,
which resulted in sanitizing shifts even though we only should sanitize
divisions and vice versa. It also removed one unnecessary check; it's
sufficient to check that instrument_expr != NULL. I also found a mistake
in a test,
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:58:03AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
> > While doing some work on power8, I wanted to make sure that for existing
> > systems, I was generating the same code. So I built some code and ran it
> > through variou
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 09:55 +0200, Christian Bruel wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 09/16/2013 07:10 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > Christian Bruel writes:
> >> @@ -6893,11 +6894,14 @@ label:
> >> ;; reloading MAC subregs otherwise. For that probably special patterns
> >> ;;
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> While doing some work on power8, I wanted to make sure that for existing
> systems, I was generating the same code. So I built some code and ran it
> through various -mcpu= options. When I built a powerpc-linuxpaired
> compiler, the
This PR shows that we may not fold chrec operations with chrecs
that are not properly instantiated (and thus may contain symbols
that are defined in the varying loop). To fix that the patch
makes sure to instantiate them and adds asserts to catch issues
elsewhere (hopefully not too many). For th
Yufeng Zhang writes:
> Ah, I didn't think too much at then on the backward compatibility issue
> with binutils-2_23. One potential solution can be to backport part of
> configury change from binutils trunk to 2_23. Can I ask if there is any
> particular reason that you wouldn't like to build th
Il 16/09/2013 22:58, Tom Tromey ha scritto:
> Paolo> The series looks okay to me with that change.
>
> Two last questions while I'm testing my rebase --
>
> First, do you mind if I resend the whole series? Otherwise I can try to
> pick out just the patches that have changed, plus the additional
Hi!
This is the C FE counterpart of the C++ FE OpenMP 4.0 user defined
reductions, as C has no templates, class inheritance, doesn't
allow #pragma omp declare reduction in structs/unions, the implementation is
significantly simpler.
Joseph, any comments on this?
2013-09-18 Jakub Jelinek
Hi,
this is a regression present on mainline and 4.8 branch (and latent on the 4.7
branch), which is visible with the attached Ada testcase for targets using the
SJLJ exception scheme:
eric@polaris:~/gnat/bugs/M823-029> ~/build/gcc-4_8-branch/native/gcc/gnat1 -
quiet p.adb -O2
+
this is fine with me.
kenny
On 09/18/2013 03:27 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Ping
Richard Sandiford writes:
Enabling the CONST_INT assert showed that this branch-local code was
passing the wrong mode to std::make_pair. The mode of X is OLDMODE,
and we're supposed to be converting it to MODE
Hi,
committed to mainline/4_8/4_7.
Thanks,
Paolo.
/
2013-09-18 Daniel Morris
Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58458
* doc/implement-cxx.texi: Fix references to the C++ standards.
Index: doc/implement-cxx.texi
This fixes the incorrect computation of the bounds of an object with
unconstrained array nominal subtype, which is initialized by the dereference
of an access value obtained as the result of a function call.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline and 4.8 branch.
2013-09-18 Eric
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 09/17/2013 08:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
after vectors, lists. I didn't touch the throw we were discussing earlier
today for now. There will be an inconsistency with debug list iterators
because they use a general wrapper:
- I would need François to t
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:18 PM
>> To: Richard Earnshaw
>> Cc: Zhenqiang Chen; GCC Patches
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/n] Add conditional compa
Hi!
I've merged again trunk into gomp-4_0-branch, but have noticed
that in the earlier merge I've added the #defines together with
the corresponding structures/enums into tree-core.h, when apparently
the defines belong into tree.h.
2013-09-18 Jakub Jelinek
* tree-core.h (OMP_CLAUSE_DE
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:34:23AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Cary, Evgeny
> On 13/09/13 23:38, Cary Coutant wrote:
> >>I’ve attached fix for this issue:
> >>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57737
> >>There are fix, two tests and change log message.
> >>
> >>Is it ok?
> >>
> >>Car
On 09/18/13 11:21, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Yufeng Zhang writes:
(ASM_SPEC): Update to also substitute -mabi.
You should check that the assembler actually understands that option.
Currently it is impossible to build an aarch64-linux compiler with
binutils from the binutils-2_23 branch.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2013-09-18 Eric Botcazou
* gcc-interface/decl.c (gnat_to_gnu_entity) : New.
--
Eric BotcazouIndex: gcc-interface/decl.c
===
--- gcc-interface/decl.c (revision 20268
Hi Cary, Evgeny
On 13/09/13 23:38, Cary Coutant wrote:
I’ve attached fix for this issue:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57737
There are fix, two tests and change log message.
Is it ok?
Cary, can you commit it for me?
Ping this patch, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > > +cgraph_node *cgn = static_cast (x);
>> > > +gt_ggc_m_11cgraph_edge (cgn->callers);
>> > > +gt_ggc_m_11cgraph_node (cgn->origin);
>> > > +gt_ggc_m_11cgraph_node (cgn->nested);
>> > > +
This fixes an oversight in the recent implementation of functions with In Out
parameters for Ada 2012, which leads to wrong code if the function contains a
nested subprogram which also takes an In Out parameter with elementary type.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on all active branches.
Yufeng Zhang writes:
> (ASM_SPEC): Update to also substitute -mabi.
You should check that the assembler actually understands that option.
Currently it is impossible to build an aarch64-linux compiler with
binutils from the binutils-2_23 branch.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, s
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:18 PM
> To: Richard Earnshaw
> Cc: Zhenqiang Chen; GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/n] Add conditional compare support
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Richard Earnsha
Hi,
On 09/17/2013 08:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
after vectors, lists. I didn't touch the throw we were discussing
earlier today for now. There will be an inconsistency with debug list
iterators because they use a general wrapper:
- I would need François to tell if that wrapper is ever u
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 16/09/13 15:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > +void
> > > > > +get_range_info (tree name, double_int &min, double_int &
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Kugan wrote:
>
> Thanks Richard for the review.
> On 16/09/13 23:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Kugan wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Updated the patch to the latest changes in trunk that splits tree.h. I
> > > also
> > > noticed an error in printing do
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of bin.cheng
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 3:09 PM
> To: Richard Earnshaw
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH ARM]Refine scaled address expression on ARM
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >
> > > On 16/09/13 15:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > +void
> > > > +get_range_info (tree name, double_int &min, double_int &max,
> > > > +enum value_range_type &
On 09/18/13 10:57, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 09/17/2013 12:19 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
>> This is no-op for usual GCC targets, because we don't pass any string to
>> CreateSemaphore anyway. However this trivial change will help
>> mingw-w64's efforts to support WinRT, where only unicode variant is
>> a
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> > On 16/09/13 15:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > +void
> > > +get_range_info (tree name, double_int &min, double_int &max,
> > > +enum value_range_type &range_type)
>
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:35:38PM +0400, Michael V. Zolotukhin wrote:
> I merged my patch with recent changes in gomp4-branch, and the new version is
> below. Also, I fixed most of your remarks - the one isn't fixed is checking
> sizeof(void*)==sizeof(uintptr_t) in configure. I'll do it in the n
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 16/09/13 15:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> > +void
> > +get_range_info (tree name, double_int &min, double_int &max,
> > +enum value_range_type &range_type)
> >
> > I'm not sure we want to use references. Well - first time.
>
> Pers
On 16/09/13 15:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> +void
> +get_range_info (tree name, double_int &min, double_int &max,
> +enum value_range_type &range_type)
>
> I'm not sure we want to use references. Well - first time.
Personally, I don't think we should ever allow non-const reference
Hi Jakub,
I merged my patch with recent changes in gomp4-branch, and the new version is
below. Also, I fixed most of your remarks - the one isn't fixed is checking
sizeof(void*)==sizeof(uintptr_t) in configure. I'll do it in the next patch.
Is it ok for gomp4-branch?
Also, I was thinking of ho
Hi Guys,
I am applying the patch below to add a couple of minor tweaks to the
msp430.h header file. The first is to pass the -md command line
option to the assembler, to enable the copying of data from ROM to
RAM. (This is a code size optimization. The assembler and linker
conspire to
Hi Richard,
On 09/16/2013 07:10 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> Christian Bruel writes:
>> @@ -6893,11 +6894,14 @@ label:
>> ;; reloading MAC subregs otherwise. For that probably special patterns
>> ;; would be required.
>> (define_insn "*mov_reg_reg"
>> - [(set (match_opera
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
