On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> This patch cures the linux kernel boot failure when compiled using
> trunk gcc. (Andrew, apologies for hijacking your bugzilla, I started
> work on this before finding the bugzilla..)
It is ok that you took over as it looks like you have a mor
On 9/15/14 11:03, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 09/14/14 00:51, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Hello maintainers:
>>
>> I also find some warnings during compiling microblaze, I also shall try
>> to fix them, but excuse me, I am not quite familiar the testsuite for
>> microblaze, could you provide any related inf
This patch cures the linux kernel boot failure when compiled using
trunk gcc. (Andrew, apologies for hijacking your bugzilla, I started
work on this before finding the bugzilla..)
At its heart, the problem is caused by merge_decls merging from the
old decl to the new decl, then copying back to th
On 09/14/14 00:51, Chen Gang wrote:
Hello maintainers:
I also find some warnings during compiling microblaze, I also shall try
to fix them, but excuse me, I am not quite familiar the testsuite for
microblaze, could you provide any related information for it?
Hi Chen --
This is the gcc DejaGNU
> I see, you want to mix toplevel/non-toplevel across partitions. In that case
> we also
> need to disable logic sorting partitions by size if no_reorder BBs exists in
> more than
> one partition.
Isn't that already broken then with -fno-toplevel-reorder?
It already puts ordered nodes into di
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 02:38:45PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> + SIBLING_CALL_P (tmp) = 1;
> + SIBLING_CALL_P (tmp) = 1;
The second time is to make sure? :-)
Segher
> > Yep, -fno-toplevel-reorder also ldisables some optimizations (as unreachable
> > function removal)
>
> Actually it seemed like in my tests it only disables unreachable
> variable removal. Might have been wrong though.
>
> > >/* Set when function is visible by other units. */
> > >uns
On May 22, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> This patch adds a small improvement about sibling tail-calls.
So, I was hoping that you would weigh or fix the damage (PR61387) this does on
darwin.
Here is a patch that fixes it.
Index: config/i386/i386.c
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> 2014-09-10 Markus Trippelsdorf
>
> * doc/install.texi (Options specification): add
> --disable-libsanitizer item.
Looks good to me, thanks.
Gerald
> Yep, -fno-toplevel-reorder also ldisables some optimizations (as unreachable
> function removal)
Actually it seemed like in my tests it only disables unreachable
variable removal. Might have been wrong though.
> >/* Set when function is visible by other units. */
> >unsigned externally
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> Some projects need to prevent reordering of specific top level
> declarations with LTO, in particular declarations defining init calls.
Thanks for working on it!
>
> The only way to do that with LTO was to use -fno-toplevel-reorder,
> which stops reordering for all declar
On 8-Sep-14, at 5:21 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:36 PM, John David Anglin > wrote:
The attached patch fixes bootstrap on hpux which doesn't have the
atoll
function.
Tested on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 and hppa64-hp-hpux11.11.
OK for trunk?
"ll" is not portable (it's GNU)
On 14 September 2014 21:36, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/14/2014 07:44 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>>
>> Tested on Linux-x64.
>
> Thanks. In such cases you can as well remove the main: then is also
> immediately obvious the the testcase is a dg-do compile.
Sure, but sometimes I use such
On Sep 14, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> Add some simple test cases for noreorder behaving like
> -fno-toplevel-reorder and -fno-toplevel-reorder still working.
> Unfortunately there's no easy way to check for output order in DG,
> so we just check for existence.
I
Hi,
On 09/14/2014 07:44 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
Tested on Linux-x64.
Thanks. In such cases you can as well remove the main: then is also
immediately obvious the the testcase is a dg-do compile.
Paolo.
From: Andi Kleen
Add some simple test cases for noreorder behaving like
-fno-toplevel-reorder and -fno-toplevel-reorder still working.
Unfortunately there's no easy way to check for output order in DG,
so we just check for existence.
gcc/testsuite/:
2014-09-14 Andi Kleen
* gcc.dg/no
From: Andi Kleen
Some projects need to prevent reordering of specific top level
declarations with LTO, in particular declarations defining init calls.
The only way to do that with LTO was to use -fno-toplevel-reorder,
which stops reordering for all declarations and makes LTO partitioning
less ef
Tested on Linux-x64.
/testsuite
2014-09-14 Ville Voutilainen
Minor cleanup, don't run tests for which compilation is enough.
* g++.dg/g++.dg/cpp1y/var-templ1.C: Change return to
static_assert, compile instead of running.
* g++.dg/g++.dg/cpp1y/var-templ3.C: Likewise.
* g++.dg/g+
I would like review of my SD-6 implementation.
Part 1 - __has_include__ built-in in libcpp.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00083.html
Part 2 - __has_include macro and C++ language feature macros.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00084.html
Part 3 - libstdc++ library
What happened with this? I don't see any libcc1 in the gcc repository
and this patch was never committed.
Cheers,
Manuel.
On 31 August 2014 17:12, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2014, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
"Jeff" == Jeff Law writes:
Does this deserve a mention
Tested on Linux-x64.
/cp
2014-09-14 Ville Voutilainen
Do not diagnose lambda default arguments in c++14 modes.
* parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt): Make the pedwarn conditional.
/testsuite
2014-09-14 Ville Voutilainen
Do not diagnose lambda default arguments in c++14
libat_lock_n acquires a set of locks from an array of locks. As done now,
locks might be acquired first from the end of the array and then from the
start of the array. Consider the scenario of two threads each trying to
acquire all locks. Thread 1 starts by taking lock 1 and thread 2 starts by
taki
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Yury Gribov wrote:
> Ok, it tooks some time. Basically we want brace symbol to behave differently
> in two contexts:
>
> 1) not add any additional offset when not following control flow operator:
> void
> f ()
> {
> int x;
> {
> }
> }
Note that GCC commonly uses custom
On 13/09/14 21:58 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
We've had __has_final built-in for a good while.
the std library component is_final was added to C++14 - which is now good.
I noticed while looking at the latest SD-6 draft.
So here is a simple patch that builds and passes clean on x86_64-linux.
I sent you the file you requested (off list), but never heard back from
you about the valgrind results.
In an effort to move this along, I installed ubuntu under virtualbox and
did a build of gcc. When running the output of this build with
valgrind, I saw a number of memory *leaks* reported,
Committed as rev. 215251
Thanks for the review.
FX
Hello maintainers:
I also find some warnings during compiling microblaze, I also shall try
to fix them, but excuse me, I am not quite familiar the testsuite for
microblaze, could you provide any related information for it?
Thanks.
On 09/08/2014 11:28 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 10:24 AM
On Sep 13, 2014, at 5:48 AM, FX wrote:
> Updated version, bootstraps and regtests.
> OK to commit?
Ok.
28 matches
Mail list logo
