Re: [patch] Make vector::at() assertion message more useful (try #2)

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > In the meanwhile, since you are also touching debug-mode and > profile-mode, make sure to run check-debug and check-profile too. Thanks for mentioning that. Several more tests needed line number adjustments. There are also tests that are f

Re: Revisit Core tunning flags

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> Hi, >> this is upated version of patch discussed at >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00841.html >> >> It makes CORE tuning to more follow the optimization guidelines.

Re: [c++-concepts] Constrained friends

On 09/21/2013 08:52 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: It is wrong, but not for the reasons I gave. This only happens when you try to constrain a friend function that declares a specialization, which happens to be completely separate from the previously declared template. I'm going to disallow the abili

Re: Revisit Core tunning flags

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > this is upated version of patch discussed at > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00841.html > > It makes CORE tuning to more follow the optimization guidelines. > In particular it removes some tuning flags for features I imple

Revisit Core tunning flags

Hi, this is upated version of patch discussed at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00841.html It makes CORE tuning to more follow the optimization guidelines. In particular it removes some tuning flags for features I implemented years back specifically for K7/K8 chips that ended up in

[Patch, Fortran] PR 58355: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] ICE with TYPE, EXTENDS before parent TYPE defined

Hi all, the straightforward patch in the attachment does two things: 1) It prevents a segfault, which is a regression on 4.7/4.8/trunk (by simply switching the order of two statements). 2) It modifies an error message, which was not perfectly correct in my opinion. The patch was regtested succes

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 58099: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking

> Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? > This looks good to me but I let Tobias have the final word as he expressed some concerns in the PR audit trail. >> >> Sorry for the very belated replay. I played with the patch and it looks >> okay. > > thanks. Committe

Re: [c++-concepts] Constrained friends

I'm going to rewrite this patch tomorrow morning. The semantics aren't quite right --- they should be simpler. >> Previously, if constraints were not >> satisfied, we would not record the template as a candidate. However, >> this causes errors in class template instantiation if there are >> constr

Re: [c++-concepts] Constrained friends

On 09/13/2013 12:21 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote: Previously, if constraints were not satisfied, we would not record the template as a candidate. However, this causes errors in class template instantiation if there are constrained friend declarations whose constraints are not satisfied ("no matching t

Re: [gomp4] C++ OpenMP user defined reductions (take 2)

On 09/20/2013 12:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: In templates the UDRs are always FUNCTION_DECLs in classes or at function block scope, the above one liner was I believe for the latter, where without it duplicate_decls was returning incorrectly 0; the UDRs from mismatching templates would actually ne

Re: [PATCH][AARCH64]Replace gen_rtx_PLUS with plus_constant

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 03:40:59PM +0100, Renlin Li wrote: > Thank you, can you please commit it for me? > > Kind regards, > Renlin Li > > On 09/20/13 15:26, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: > > On 20 September 2013 15:18, Renlin Li wrote: > > > >> 2013-09-20 Renlin Li > >> > >> * config/aarch64/