Jason Merrill writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alias-decl-debug-0.C
> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alias-decl-debug-0.C
> index 5b5d15a..50df842 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alias-decl-debug-0.C
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alias-decl-debug-0.C
> @@ -1,6 +1,7
Il 09/03/2014 07:24, Tobias Burnus ha scritto:
The attached patch installs cilk.h such that "#include "
works.
Bootstrapped on x86-64-gnu-linux.
OK for the trunk?
(If you wonder about the other changes in the generated-files diff: I
think they are due to r205357, where configure.ac changed and
The attached patch installs cilk.h such that "#include " works.
Bootstrapped on x86-64-gnu-linux.
OK for the trunk?
(If you wonder about the other changes in the generated-files diff: I
think they are due to r205357, where configure.ac changed and configure
was regenerated but Makefile.in and
On Mar 7, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> It's looking very likely that we will have a new C++ standard this year, so
> I'm going to go ahead and add the -std=c++14 flag for 4.9; I just won't
> advertise it yet.
Are they any plans to change the default language for C++?
Am 08.03.2014 23:37, schrieb Manfred Schwarb:
Am 08.03.2014 07:38, schrieb Jerry DeLisle:
The attached patch addresses the problem identified in comment #22 of the PR.
For character array internal unit reads, eat_spaces must call next_char to
advance every single character until the end of the s
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 07:50:53PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> OK for the trunk?
>
> diff --git a/libgfortran/libgfortran.h b/libgfortran/libgfortran.h
> index d7e15ad..2664e1f 100644
> --- a/libgfortran/libgfortran.h
> +++ b/libgfortran/libgfortran.h
> @@ -97,6 +97,16 @@ typedef off_t gfc_offse
Am 08.03.2014 07:38, schrieb Jerry DeLisle:
The attached patch addresses the problem identified in comment #22 of the PR.
For character array internal unit reads, eat_spaces must call next_char to
advance every single character until the end of the string is reached. In the
case sited which is v
Jerry DeLisle wrote:
Here is the revised patch leaving the error checks in place and using
unlikely(). I have also added handling of kind=4 character arrays.
Regression tested on x86-64. OK for trunk?
OK. Minor nit:
+ if ( unlikely(length < 0))
The space shall be after unlikely not bef
Thanks for the time and diligence writing this up, Richi!
On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> -files; if @option{-flto} is not passed to the linker, no
> -interprocedural optimizations are applied.
> +files; if @option{-fno-lto} is not passed to the linker, no
> +interprocedural optimizati
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> This patch adds support for the PowerPC ISA 2.07 (power8) 128-bit add/subtract
> instructions that use the Altivec (VMX) register set (vaddumq, etc.).
>
> Unfortunately at the moment, TImode (__int128_t) is not allowed to use the
> VSX/VMX
On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I've backported a few bugfixes to 4.8 branch, bootstrapped/regtested
> on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to branch.
This reminds my: what are your plans doing new release off that
branch? The last one has been five months ago. What is the rou
> Everything except _Cilk_for should be supported.
Imagine you're a new cilk user. For you it's totally obvious
what "everything" is. But someone new to it they won't it
know anything about "everything". So you have to tell them.
-Andi
Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
1.2 is 1.1 ABI with the language spec reformatted. No new features has
been added in between 1.1 and 1.2. So, you can say either one.
Or should we simply remove the ABI version completely? I have attached
such a patch
I would put the ABI version, since the Cilk users will
> -Original Message-
> From: Andi Kleen [mailto:a...@firstfloor.org]
> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:38 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Andi Kleen; Tobias Burnus; Gerald Pfeifer; gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
>
>
> _Cilk_spawn is the correct keyword. "cilk_spawn" can be used if the user
> includes which has the following 3 lines (and that's the whole
> file)
>
> #define cilk_spawn _Cilk_spawn
> #define cilk_sync _Cilk_sync
> #define cilk_for _Cilk_for
>
>
> In Cilk there are basically 3 keywords: _Cil
> -Original Message-
> From: Tobias Burnus [mailto:bur...@net-b.de]
> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:32 PM
> To: Andi Kleen; Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Gerald Pfeifer; gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
>
> Am 08.03.2014 21
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 09:22:54PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >It would be also good if the documentation mentioned that you have
> >to specify -lcilkrts
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to automatically add the option? For
> instance like the following? Or do we need to do t
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> OK for the trunk / the webserver?
Okay. Go for the previous version with the ABI reference based
on what Iyer wrote.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> 1.2 is 1.1 ABI with the language spec reformatted. No new features
> has been added in betw
Am 08.03.2014 21:13, schrieb Andi Kleen:
Also it would be good to specify exactly what parts of Cilk are
supported currently. It's some what hard to figure out.
My understanding is that everything but cilk_for is supported.
One trap I ran into (perhaps naively) is that I tried to use
cilk_spa
> -Original Message-
> From: Tobias Burnus [mailto:bur...@net-b.de]
> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:06 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Gerald Pfeifer
> Cc: gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
>
> Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > Iye
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Andi Kleen
> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:13 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Tobias Burnus; Gerald Pfeifer; gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention
Andi Kleen wrote:
It would be also good if the documentation mentioned that you have to
specify -lcilkrts
Wouldn't it make more sense to automatically add the option? For
instance like the following? Or do we need to do the same as for libgomp
and create a .spec file?
Tobias
--- a/gcc/gcc
On 03/08/2014 04:58 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>> The speedup is accomplished by simply skipping over spaces without calling
>> next_read, then backing up one character and letting the existing execution
>> path
>> proceed, preserving all the
Andi Kleen writes:
> "Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
>>
>> The sentence "Current only..." should be changed to something like this:
>>
>> Currently all the features except _Cilk_for has been implemented.
>
> It would be also good if the documentation mentioned that you have to
> specify -lcilkrts
Also
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Thank you for catching this. Yes, it should be ABI 1.1
Actually, shouldn't this ABI 1.2? On http://www.cilkplus.org/ - one
finds the statement: "The new specification (version 1.2) contains
numerous corrections and clarifications. No new features w
"Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
>
> The sentence "Current only..." should be changed to something like this:
>
> Currently all the features except _Cilk_for has been implemented.
It would be also good if the documentation mentioned that you have to
specify -lcilkrts
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- S
Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Thank you for catching this. Yes, it should be ABI 1.1
...
The sentence "Current only..." should be changed to something like
this: Currently all the features except _Cilk_for has been implemented.
How about the following patch to changes.html - and to doc/invoke.texi?
[Resend as it was initially HTML - sorry for those who are CCed.]
Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
OpenACC 1.0 fortran FE support -- matching and resolving.
+gfc_match_oacc_cache (void)
+{
...
+ if (gfc_current_state() != COMP_DO)
{
- gfc_free_omp_clauses (c);
+ gfc_error ("ACC CACHE d
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Tobias Burnus
> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:24 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V; Gerald Pfeifer
> Cc: gcc-patches; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in
Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Cilk Plus supports both task and data parallelism and Cilk Plus and
thus far all features except _Cilk_for is supported in 4.9. I am not
sure what ABI you are referring to but Cilk Plus follows Cilk ABI 1.1.
Well, I am referring to the following in gcc/doc/invoke.texi. Fr
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Christian Bruel wrote:
> Hi Ramana,
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>
>> Please respin using plus_constant instead of gen_addsi3.
>
> Here is my feeling about this:
>
> I experimented on using plus_constant instead of gen_addsi3. But there
> are cases when the emitte
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerald Pfeifer [mailto:ger...@pfeifer.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 1:29 PM
> To: Tobias Burnus
> Cc: gcc-patches; Iyer, Balaji V; Jakub Jelinek
> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] RFC - mention Cilk Plus in the GCC 4.9 release notes
>
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Tobia
OK for the trunk?
Tobias
diff --git a/libgfortran/libgfortran.h b/libgfortran/libgfortran.h
index d7e15ad..2664e1f 100644
--- a/libgfortran/libgfortran.h
+++ b/libgfortran/libgfortran.h
@@ -97,6 +97,16 @@ typedef off_t gfc_offset;
#define NULL (void *) 0
#endif
+
+/* The following macros can
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> the attached patch mentions the support of Cilk Plus in GCC 4.9 in the
> release notes, http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html
>
> Is the patch OK?
"Plus is an extension...", should this read "Cilk Plus is an extension?"
If so, I suggest to switch the
Hi all,
the attached patch mentions the support of Cilk Plus in GCC 4.9 in the
release notes, http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html
Is the patch OK?
Tobias
PS: Is it correct that the current implementation only supports ABI 0.9
of Oct 2010 and not ABI 1.1 of Jul 2011? (Current is 1.2 of S
I have committed the attached patch as obvious. Suggestions to the
wording are welcome - as are other suggestions to the release notes.
Tobias
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.9/changes.html,v
retrievi
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 02:44:16PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> gfortran currently tells the ME that it wants it - even if it is not
> needed when only preprocessing a file (-E). This patch fixes this by
> telling the ME that no_backend is required - and then by triggering an
> early exit in
Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
OpenACC 1.0 fortran FE support -- tests.
I browsed through the patches and it looked good to me.
Tobias
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/
* assumed.f95: New test
* branch.f95: Likewise
* coarray.f95: Likewise
* continuation-free-form.f95: Likewise
* cr
Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
OpenACC 1.0 fortran FE support -- translation to GENERIC.
This part of the patch set looks good to me. Thanks.
Tobias
gcc/fortran/
* trans-decl.c
(gfc_generate_function_code): Insert OACC_DECLARE GENERIC node.
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_convert_expr_to_tree): New
Are the global registers 5 and 6 really available for the operating
system or uses GCC or the linker them for a special purpose? Is it
possible to document this somewhere in to standard documentation and not
only in a header file?
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-03-08 Sebastian Huber
* config/spar
On 03/08/2014 02:45 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
--- snip ---
>
> I think that code is okay.
>
> I wonder whether it can happen that we read one character too far: i.e.
> stell()
> == end of string; offset++ -> one behind. As one then immediately steps back
> (due to "offset < limit" plus offset--),
Hi Bernd,
Here is updated patch for libgomp. It assumes that there is a constructor with
a call to GOMP_offload_register in every target image, created by mkoffload
tool. How does this look?
---
libgomp/libgomp.map |1 +
libgomp/plugin-host.c | 58 -
libgomp/target.c
Hello,
gfortran currently tells the ME that it wants it - even if it is not
needed when only preprocessing a file (-E). This patch fixes this by
telling the ME that no_backend is required - and then by triggering an
early exit in lang_dependent_init (all in toplev.c).
Build and currently reg
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> The speedup is accomplished by simply skipping over spaces without calling
> next_read, then backing up one character and letting the existing execution
> path
> proceed, preserving all the end of record code needed in next_char.
>
> I also re
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 04:50:44PM +0400, Anatoly Sokolov wrote:
> > Don't maintainers usually retain their write-after-approval status even
> > if they step down from the maintainership?
>
> > Rainer
>
>
> Please retain me write-after-approval status. I must return to active work
> on
Hello.
> Denis Chertykov writes:
>> 2014-03-07 Denis Chertykov
>>
>> * MAINTAINERS: Remove avr maintainers: Anatoly Sokolov and
>> Eric Weddington
> Don't maintainers usually retain their write-after-approval status even
> if they step down from the maintainership?
> Rainer
Richard Biener writes:
> The following patch addresses the common (?) issue of people
> omitting -flto from the linker command-line which gets more
> severe with GCC 4.9 where slim LTO objects are emitted by
> default. The patch simply _always_ arranges for the linker
> plugin to be used, so if
Sorry, an error occurred somewhere. Below is an attachment with the
patch and ChangeLog entry.
> This patch fixes the following bug:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59586.
> The segfault is caused by NULL arguments passed to compute_deps by
> loop_level_carries_dependences.
> This ca
On 07/03/14 09:03, Richard Biener wrote:
Btw, can you check the attached as well? It makes sure all TUs
have -fshort-double set consistently and it automatically enables
it at link-time, not allowing to override the setting.
If it works for you please check it in, too. (I can't really test it
Jerry DeLisle wrote:
The attached patch addresses the problem identified in comment #22 of the PR.
For character array internal unit reads, eat_spaces must call next_char to
advance every single character until the end of the string is reached. In the
case sited which is very contrived, this amo
Hello All,
I am pinging again this documentation patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00074.html
(pinged at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01002.html on febµ.17th
2014)
gcc/ChangeLog entry
2014-03-08 Basile Starynkevitch
* doc/plugins.texi (Plugin ca
This patch fixes the following bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59586.
The segfault is caused by NULL arguments passed to compute_deps by
loop_level_carries_dependences.
This causes an assignment of NULL values to the no_source parameters
of compute_deps.
They are passed to subtract
2014-03-08 8:38 GMT+01:00 Tobias Burnus :
> An update the gfortran.texi's F2003/F2008 status.
>
> OK for the trunk?
Sounds good. Ok!
Cheers,
Janus
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-03-08 Sebastian Huber
* doc/invoke.texi (mapp-regs): Clarify.
---
gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 2ee091a..12b43fa 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc
PR 58271 shows a case where using -mips3 -mpaired-single will print:
warning: the 'mips3' architecture does not support paired-single instructions
[enabled by default]
and then ICE because the -mpaired-single support implicitly assumes
that MIPS IV features are available. The ICE in this case
55 matches
Mail list logo
