[patch, nios2] enable FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD

2017-10-28 Thread Sandra Loosemore
I discovered that the stack-smashing protection options (-fstack-protector and friends) were rejected on nios2 because this backend wasn't defining FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason not to enable that, so here I've switched it on. Committed after regression

[v3 PATCH] Implement LWG 2485

2017-10-28 Thread Ville Voutilainen
2017-10-29 Ville Voutilainen Implement LWG 2485 * include/debug/array (get(const array<_Tp, _Nm>&&)): New. * include/std/array (get(const array<_Tp, _Nm>&&)): Likewise. * include/std/tuple (get(const tuple<_Elements...>&&)): Likewise. (get(const tuple<_Types...>&&)): Likewi

[patch, fortran] KIND arguments for MINLOC and MAXLOC

2017-10-28 Thread Thomas Koenig
Hello world, the attached patch allows KIND arguments to MINLOC and MAXLOC. There was a bit of a choice to make here. Originally, I wanted to run the calculation using index_type only and convert to another integer kind if that was required. This ran into the issue that bounds checking fails for

Re: Add -std=c17, -std=gnu17

2017-10-28 Thread Richard Biener
On October 27, 2017 11:56:47 PM GMT+02:00, Joseph Myers wrote: >C17, a bug-fix version of the C11 standard with DR resolutions >integrated, will soon go to ballot. This patch adds corresponding >options -std=c17, -std=gnu17 (new default version, replacing >-std=gnu11 as the default), -std=iso989

Re: [patch, fortran, RFC] Interchange indices for FORALL and DO CONCURRENT if profitable

2017-10-28 Thread Richard Biener
On October 28, 2017 12:03:58 AM GMT+02:00, Thomas Koenig wrote: >Hello world, > >this is a draft patch which interchanges the indices for FORALL and >DO CONCURRENT loops for cases like PR 82471, where code like > > DO CONCURRENT( K=1:N, J=1:M, I=1:L) > C(I,J,K) = A(I,J,K) + B(I,J,K) > EN

Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix pointer diff (was: -fsanitize=pointer-overflow support (PR sanitizer/80998))

2017-10-28 Thread Richard Biener
On October 28, 2017 2:53:56 PM GMT+02:00, Marc Glisse wrote: > >I am sending the new version of the patch in a separate email, to make >it >more visible, and only replying to a few points here. > >On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Marc Glisse >wrot

Re: [PATCH, Fortran, v1] Clarify error message of co_reduce

2017-10-28 Thread Andre Vehreschild
Hi all, I got no direct objections therefore committed as r254197 to trunk and r254198 to gcc-7. @Steve, I will take a look at what you pointed. - Andre On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:19:02 +0200 Andre Vehreschild wrote: > Hi all, > > as noted on IRC is one of the error message in check.c co_reduc

[RFTesting] New POINTER_DIFF_EXPR

2017-10-28 Thread Marc Glisse
Hello, first, if you are doing anything unusual with pointers (address spaces, pointer/sizetype with weird sizes, instrumentation, etc), it would be great if you could give this patch a try. It was bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu (gcc112), and a slightly older vers

Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix pointer diff (was: -fsanitize=pointer-overflow support (PR sanitizer/80998))

2017-10-28 Thread Marc Glisse
I am sending the new version of the patch in a separate email, to make it more visible, and only replying to a few points here. On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: On Mon, 3 Jul 2017, Richard Biener wrote: On Sat, 1 Jul 2017, Mar

Re: [patch, fortran, RFC] Interchange indices for FORALL and DO CONCURRENT if profitable

2017-10-28 Thread Thomas Koenig
Hi Steve, On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:03:58AM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote: +/* Callback function to determine if an expression is the + corresponding variable. */ + +static int static bool Most of the functions in the patch are callback functions for gfc_code_walker or gfc_expr_walker, resp