On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:23:56AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Bootstrapped and regression checked on x86_64-linux and powerpc64-linux
> {-m32,-m64}.
Now also tested on aarch64-linux; no new failures.
Segher
> 2017-03-18 Segher Boessenkool
>
> PR rtl-optimization/79910
>
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:17:00PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Applied.
Thanks!
You now have added two entries for me; fixed like this:
2017-03-18 Segher Boessenkool
* doc/contrib.texi (Contributors): Remove duplicate entry for myself.
---
gcc/doc/contrib.texi | 3 ---
1 file c
Hello everyone,
I submitted this patch a week ago, but I think it got lost. It adds an
error if BIND(C) is used with EQUIVALENCE.
Nicolas
Regression tested for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
2017-03-18 Nicolas Koenig
PR fortran/39239
* resolve.c (resolve_equivalence
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Thanks, I've incorporated your and James' feedback.
> Since James ok'd the content of the patch from an AArch64 perspective
> I'll commit this later today if I receive no further feedback.
Thanks, Kyrill, those were quite some additions!
I made a few f
Applied.
(Segher kindly reviewed this in draft form.)
If anyone else is missing, now would be a good time to speak up. ;)
Gerald
2017-03-18 Gerald Pfeifer
* doc/contrib.texi (Contributors): Add Segher Boessenkool.
Index: doc/contrib.texi
==
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> The C++14 standard is:
> http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ISO%2fIEC+14882%3a2014
Thanks, Jonathan!
>> What do you think?
> Should we make the FAQ link to the info in the manual, instead of just
> removing it?
Great idea. Unfortunately
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the French team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/fr.po
(This file, 'gcc-7.1-b20170226.fr.po', h
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Here is the entire difference between the config.guess we have
>> and upstream.
> Yea, fine with me.
Cool, here is what I just installed.
(Richi, i386-unknown-freebsd* is now "gone", both in terms of
our release documentation and automatic target detection.
Hi Richard, Catherine, Matthew
On Thu, 2017-03-02 14:40:46 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
[...]
> On IRC we decided to wait&see for the TREE_NO_WARNING issue. So the
> following is what I committed.
>
> Bootstrapped / tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
[...]
> 2017-03-02 Richard Biener
>
>
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, Martin Jambor wrote:
> I have noticed that -fipa-vrp was not documented in gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> so I propose the following. When at ti, I took the liberty of replacing
> "ipa" with "interprocedural" in the description of -fipa-bit-cp.
That's definitely a good change, thank
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> + cond = instantiate_non_dependent_expr_sfinae (cond, tf_none);
Why this rather than instantiate_non_dependent_expr (and so tf_error)?
Jason
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 04:23:57PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>+ /* For combinations that may result in two insns, we have to gather
> >>+ some extra information about registers used, so that we can
> >>+ update all relevant LOG_LINKS later. */
> >
> >Please just refuse to do the combinati
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the German team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/de.po
(This file, 'gcc-7.1-b20170226.de.po', h
...by removing entries in the Write After Approval section that are
already listed as Reviewers.
This came up in a conversation between Andrew and me when he added
himself.
Applied
Gerald
2017-03-18 Gerald Pfeifer
* MAINTAINERS (Write After Approval): Remove entries that are
Dear All,
OK'd by Steve and committed as revision 246256.
Cheers
Paul
On 27 February 2017 at 19:23, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> This bug resulted from a cock-up on my part. The mechanism for
> suppressing .smod files depended on detecting the presence of a module
> procedure by
Dear All,
I have just noticed that this patch never went to the list because it
contained some mime content. As it happens, Anton has tested it and it
is relatively trivial. This is just as well because I have unwittingly
gone ahead and committed it as revision 246255!
Cheers
Paul
On 26 Februar
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Nick Clifton wrote:
>>> Okay to yank this?
>> Fine by me.
> Me too.
Okay, so I went ahead and committed the patch below.
> None. Are you intending to replace the requirement with a more recent
> version of the binutils, or just remove the requirement entirely ?
This is most
On 2017.03.14 at 17:08 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> I've backported the attached patches gcc-6.
The PR79264 backport caused:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80091
--
Markus
18 matches
Mail list logo
