On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 06:39:20 PM Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 08:55 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> > On Monday, January 11, 2016 04:57:18 PM Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >> On 01/08/2016 10:33 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> >>> 2016-01-08 Thomas Preud'homme
> >>>
> >>> *
On 01/15/2016 02:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 01/14/2016 10:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
In anticipation of needing to do something I put together the attached
patch that rolls this change into version 10, letting version 9 and
prior roll it back. I also mention it in the manual. What the patc
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 15:38 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:33AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> >> stage1 libstdc++ builds just fine. the problem is
Hi!
The attached patch addresses the failure of declare-4 in the libgomp testsuite.
The primary failure was the use a variable with a link clause for an OpenACC
routine function. The patch changes the test to use a create clause. The patch
also adds checking of those globals used within an OpenAC
On 2016-01-11, at 10:56 AM, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 2016-01-11 8:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:16:31PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> In any case, we have no_c99_libc_has_function on hpux and everything on
> linux. So, I
> don't think testing with f
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch continues resolving andn regression case in stv pass
> (see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg01017.html).
> In this patch a new andn pattern added similar to other bit
> DI patterns we have for stv pass.
>
> Th
On 01/17/2016 10:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
During profiledbootstrap, I'm seeing:
../../gcc/system.h: In function 'void autopref_multipass_init(const rtx_insn*,
int)':
../../gcc/system.h:367:29: warning: 'max_offset' may be used uninitialized in
this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
#de
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 09:21:45PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> The attached patch works around this by always definining stubs for the
> libitm functions, yet declaring them weak at the same time. If
This doesn't look like a good idea. The dynamic linker doesn't make
difference between weak a
On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 15:38 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:33AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >> stage1 libstdc++ builds just fine. the problem is stage2 configure
> >> fails due to missing ITM_xxx symbols wh
> Sounds like a good excuse to add a guality for Ada (which has unique
> needs for dwarf).
Well, the guality testsuite is a pain to maintain so I'd rather not.
The GDB testsuite is clearly the right place for this kind of testcases.
--
Eric Botcazou
Hi!
This fixes a warning in mark_loops_in_oacc_kernels_region.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to trunk.
2016-01-17 Jakub Jelinek
* omp-low.c (mark_loops_in_oacc_kernels_region): Work around
-Wmaybe-uninitialized warning.
--- gcc/omp-low.c.jj
Hi!
During profiledbootstrap, I'm seeing:
../../gcc/system.h: In function 'void autopref_multipass_init(const rtx_insn*,
int)':
../../gcc/system.h:367:29: warning: 'max_offset' may be used uninitialized in
this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
#define MAX(X,Y) ((X) > (Y) ? (X) : (Y))
> Following patch fixes another warning in adaint.c:
> ../../gcc/ada/adaint.c: In function 'void
> __gnat_killprocesstree(int, int)':
> ../../gcc/ada/adaint.c:3284:26: warning: suggest parentheses around
> assignment used as truth value [-Wparentheses]
>while (d = readdir (dir))
>
Hi!
The following patch fixes a warning in libmpx:
../../../../libmpx/mpxwrap/mpx_wrappers.c:492:8: warning: assignment discards
'const' qualifier from pointer target type [-Wdiscarded-qualifiers]
*d = *s;
^
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2016-
Hi!
Following patch fixes another warning in adaint.c:
../../gcc/ada/adaint.c: In function 'void __gnat_killprocesstree(int, int)':
../../gcc/ada/adaint.c:3284:26: warning: suggest parentheses around assignment
used as truth value [-Wparentheses]
while (d = readdir (dir))
On Sun, 2016-01-17 at 17:03 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 17 January 2016 at 17:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 16 January 2016 at 22:47, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >> This adds a missing string argument to a call to static_assert, thus not
> >> making it depend on c++1z extensions. This fixes
Dear Andre,
Thanks for the very useful discussion. It cleared away one or two cobwebs!
Committed as revision 232482.
Now to see if it will apply to 4.9 branch This might be a step too
far, since all sorts of other prerequisites are not there. If it
doesn't go well, I will close the PR as a W
Hi Paul,
with the two changes mentioned on IRC ok by me. Thanks for the patch.
Regards,
Andre
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 11:17:08 +0100
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Dear Mikael,
>
> I have gathered together the applicable patches to fix this PR on
> 5-branch. In so doing, the testcase for PR
On 17 January 2016 at 17:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 16 January 2016 at 22:47, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> This adds a missing string argument to a call to static_assert, thus not
>> making it depend on c++1z extensions. This fixes the build breakage on
>> mingw introduced in 232454.
>>
>> Tested
On 16 January 2016 at 22:47, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> This adds a missing string argument to a call to static_assert, thus not
> making it depend on c++1z extensions. This fixes the build breakage on
> mingw introduced in 232454.
>
> Tested on x86_64-linux. OK?
OK.
On 16 January 2016 at 22:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Don't you need to update baseline_symbols.txt?
That usually happens when we get near the release, not every time we
add symbols.
Our code for handling the "_Pragma" builtin macro is implemented in
libcpp/directives.c:destringize_and_run.
It handles _Pragma by creating a one-line buffer containing the _Pragma
content, then sending it to do_pragma, which tokenizes it and handles
the input as if it were spelled as #pragma.
Hello world,
after the recent discussion about MATMUL(A,TRANSPOSE(B)) I have prepared
a patch which implements this.
The patch is a rather straightforward implementation using the machinery
that is already in place for matmul inlining, so the risk of introducing
a regression should be quite low.
Dear Mikael,
I have gathered together the applicable patches to fix this PR on
5-branch. In so doing, the testcase for PR66082 was added
(alloc_comp_auto_array_3.f90), since a change was made for this PR. I
found that this leaked memory, of course, and so I have added the fix
for PR66082. I have c
On 31 July 2015 at 15:04, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
>
> On 29/07/15 11:09, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch tries to implement division with multiplication by
>> reciprocal using vrecpe/vrecps
>> with -funsafe-math-optimizations and -freciprocal-math enabled.
>> Tested on arm-no
25 matches
Mail list logo
