Hi Bin,
Thanks for posting the patch. I haven't looked in detail yet but have
couple of quick questions.
1. Shouldn’t the run time alias check for versioning happen only when
vectorisation is enabled? You seems to be using the
IFN_LOOP_DIST_ALIAS when vectoring but seems to be versioning
otherwis
Commited as r248868.
Thanks.
Paul.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Matthew Fortune
wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Paul Hua writes:
>> cc: Matthew.
>>
>> ping.
>
> Sorry a little slow on the reply.
>
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Paul Hua wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > There are duplicate testcase in gc
On 05/29/2017 04:29 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 65308c9d933..6cbb77a8dc4 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -11382,6 +11382,32 @@ of the function name, it is considered to be a match.
For C99 and C++
extend
On 06/02/2017 05:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 05/31/2017 05:34 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/27/2017 06:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* True if the class is trivial and has a trivial non-deleted copy
+ assignment, copy ctor, and default ctor, respectively. The last
+ one isn't used
On 05/26/2017 12:48 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
Hi,
This patch fixes a few issues in documentation of -mcx16 x86 backend option:
- remove implementor-speak ('oword')
- mention alignment restriction and availability only in 64-bit mode
- improve usage example
existing documentation uses a
On 06/02/2017 11:11 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
Hi Martin,
I noticed the following failures after your change r248431.
FAIL: c-c++-common/Wfloat-conversion.c -Wc++-compat (test for
warnings, line 42)
FAIL: c-c++-common/Wfloat-conversion.c -Wc++-compat (test for
warnings, line 43)
It happens on a
On 06/02/2017 09:38 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
Hi Martin,
After r247444, I saw the following two regressions in
arm-linux-gnueabihf environment:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-18.c (test for warnings,
line 119)
PASS: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-18.c (test for warnings,
line 121
Hi Paul,
Paul Hua writes:
> cc: Matthew.
>
> ping.
Sorry a little slow on the reply.
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Paul Hua wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There are duplicate testcase in gcc.target/mips dir.
> >
> > div-5.c same as div-9.c.
> > div-6.c same as div-10.c.
> > div-7.c same as div-1
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 10:32:47 +0200
>> This is an attempt to fix PR target/80968. This bug has existed
>> basically forever.
>>
>> The stack_tie sequence seems to be how other targets deal with this
>> issue. I only emit this when alloca is used. If there are other
>> co
Hi
I have eventually adapt the test to all containers and the result
is successful for map/set/unordered_map/unordered_set. It is failing for
deque/list/forward_list/vector/vector.
I even try to change the test to look at the difference between an
explicit call to the default constru
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:52:36PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> >> - regexp "(\[0-9\]+)\[ \t\]+(?:(?:#)?\[ \t\]*include\[
> >> \t\]+)\[\"\](\[^\"\]*)\[\"\]" $i dummy lineno include_file
> >> + regexp -nocase
> >> "(\[0-9\]+)\\s+(?:(?:#)?\\s*include\\s+)\[\"\'\](\[^\"\'
Hello,
thanks for proofreading!
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 01:35:56PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Just some very minor nits.
>
> > Index: final.c
> > ===
> > --- final.c (revision 248684)
> > +++ final.c (working copy)
> > @@ -1951,
__attribute__((warn_if_not_aligned(N))) issues a warning if the field
in a struct or union is not aligned to N:
typedef unsigned long long __u64
__attribute__((aligned(4),warn_if_not_aligned(8)));
struct foo
{
int i1;
int i2;
__u64 x;
};
__u64 is aligned to 4 bytes. But inside struct fo
On 2 June 2017 13:12:41 CEST, Richard Biener wrote:
>Note I'd be _much_ more sympathetic to simply canonicalizing all of
>bzero and bcopy
>to memset / memmove and be done with all the above complexity.
Indeed and even more so since SUSv3 marked it LEGACY and both were removed in
SUSv4.
thanks,
> Début du message réexpédié :
>
> De: Dominique d'Humières
> Objet: Rép : [PATCH, gfortran] Cleanup the submodule tests
> Date: 4 juin 2017 à 14:52:36 UTC+2
> À: Janus Weil
> Cc: Paul Richard Thomas ,
> seg...@kernel.crashing.org, gfortran , gcc-patches
>
>
>>
>> Le 16 avr. 2017 à 22:13,
> This is an attempt to fix PR target/80968. This bug has existed
> basically forever.
>
> The stack_tie sequence seems to be how other targets deal with this
> issue. I only emit this when alloca is used. If there are other
> conditions that potentially would necessitate such a barrier, just l
16 matches
Mail list logo
