On 05/13/2017 03:58 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
Specifically
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-03/msg00094.html
dejagnu-1.5.2 contains the libdirs tweak and was released 2015-01-30
Mike, can we please bump the required dejagnu version for GCC-8?
Thanks
There's also the version of
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Steven Munroe
wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 09:39 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:59:28PM -0500, Steven Munroe wrote:
>> > > That is just for the testsuite; I meant what happens if a user tries
>> > > to use it with an older target
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 02:36:26PM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 14:15 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:53:33AM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote:
>> > > Add handling for early
Pinging this again: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00131.html
On 3/25/17, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 03/24/2017 01:41 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> On 3/24/17, David Malcolm wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 14:10 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
The attached test case failed with gcc
Hello Jerry,
Thanks for the review. Committed as r248012.
Nicolas
On 05/13/2017 06:30 PM, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
On 05/13/2017 04:56 AM, Nicolas Koenig wrote:
Ping
Also, attached is a better test case.
On 05/09/2017 10:49 PM, Nicolas Koenig wrote:
Hello everyone,
since everybody seems to b
On 05/13/2017 11:52 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Daniel Santos wrote:
Ping? I have posted revisions of the following in patch set:
05/12 - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg01442.html
09/12 - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00348.html
11/12
Thanks! This was committed to trunk last week as r247671. As we discussed
offline, I've also backported to GCC 7 (r248010) and GCC 6 (r248011).
Bill
> On May 5, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 02:43:09PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> W
Hello!
-mtune=intel is able to copy SFmode value through general registers,
resulting in the following sequence:
(insn 288 1008 1009 29 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 4 si [687])
(lshiftrt:DI (reg:DI 4 si [687])
(const_int 32 [0x20])))
(clobbe
On 05/13/2017 04:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
I guess neither redhat
(https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a
login page but there seem to be 1.5.1 packages) nor SuSE did update dejagnu in
the m
On May 12, 2017, at 9:17 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
>
>> On May 9, 2017, at 5:28 PM, Segher Boessenkool
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 01:44:35PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> I forgot to ask -- this fix is needed for GCC 6 and 7 as well. Is this ok
>>> for backport
>>> after the u
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
>> 2017-05-12 Uros Bizjak
>>
>> * compare-elim.c (try_eliminate_compare): Canonicalize
>> operation with embedded compare to
>> [(set (reg:CCM) (compare:CCM (operation) (immediate)))
>> (set (reg) (operation)].
>>
>>
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Daniel Santos wrote:
> Ping? I have posted revisions of the following in patch set:
>
> 05/12 - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg01442.html
> 09/12 - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00348.html
> 11/12 - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
On 05/13/2017 04:56 AM, Nicolas Koenig wrote:
> Ping
> Also, attached is a better test case.
>
>
> On 05/09/2017 10:49 PM, Nicolas Koenig wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> since everybody seems to be submitting patches the last few days, I thought I
>> might as well :)
>> Attached is a patch that m
On 05/13/2017 04:06 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> Dear Jerry,
>
>> And the actual patch ...
>
> Are you sure this the right patch? It seems mostly applied on trunk.
>
> TIA
>
> Dominique
>
> PS I saw some ‘return 1;’ which should probably ‘return true;’
>
>
When I moved the checks over
Here's the promised fixes for the mn103, rx and visium ports. Verified
by comparing the generated code before the compare-elim changes with the
code generated after this change is identical for newlib.
Committed to the trunk.
Jeff
commit e3b9355843ab2b8061d297afd91082b1f9e5f937
Author: law
On 2017.05.12 at 21:09 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 05/10/2017 01:05 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue,
Hi,
I committed in r248006 the attached fix for an assertion
when doing an 'lda' of a private array offset.
BR,
--
Pekka Jääskeläinen
Parmance
Index: gcc/brig/ChangeLog
===
--- gcc/brig/ChangeLog (revision 248005)
+++ gcc/brig/Chang
Ping
Also, attached is a better test case.
On 05/09/2017 10:49 PM, Nicolas Koenig wrote:
Hello everyone,
since everybody seems to be submitting patches the last few days, I
thought I might as well :)
Attached is a patch that makes the compiler capable of dealing with
implied do variables in
Dear Jerry,
> And the actual patch ...
Are you sure this the right patch? It seems mostly applied on trunk.
TIA
Dominique
PS I saw some ‘return 1;’ which should probably ‘return true;’
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> I guess neither redhat
> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a
> login page but there seem to be 1.5.1 packages) nor SuSE did update dejagnu
> in the meantime.
Fedora has dejagnu-1.6 in Fedo
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:50:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On September 15, 2015 10:05:27 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
> >On 09/15/2015 01:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 10:39 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> >>> On Sep 14, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> Does this happen on the GCC7 branch as well? The patch just guards an
> indirect ref folding (I refrained from trying to make it correct given I
> think it's premature optimization).
No, mainline and GCC 7 branch are fine. It appears that the folding (probably
to BIT_FIELD_REF) is necessary t
On May 13, 2017 10:49:31 AM GMT+02:00, Eric Botcazou
wrote:
>> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to
>trunk.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>> 2017-03-28 Richard Biener
>>
>> PR middle-end/80222
>> * gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_indirect_ref): Do not touch
>> TYPE_
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
>
> Richard.
>
> 2017-03-28 Richard Biener
>
> PR middle-end/80222
> * gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_indirect_ref): Do not touch
> TYPE_REF_CAN_ALIAS_ALL references.
> * fold-const.c (fold_indirect_r
On 12 May 2017 01:10:19 CEST, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
>On 12 May 2017 00:57:58 CEST, Rainer Orth
>wrote:
>>Bernhard Reutner-Fischer writes:
>>
>>> On 11 May 2017 15:10:36 CEST, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 05/11/2017 08:28 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> On the gcc-7 branch, the dump
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:28:38PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > In the effort of reducing early folding, we should avoid calling
> > c_fully_fold
> > blithely, except when needed for e.g. initializers. This is a teeny tiny
> > step
>
> Note there
26 matches
Mail list logo
