Tested powerpc64le-linux, pushed to trunk.
-- >8 --
This ensures there's no linker error if libstdc++ headers are included
following a pragma that sets hidden visibility.
Similarly for std::__terminate, which is always-inline so shouldn't
matter, but it's not wrong to do this anyway.
libstdc++-
On Linux/x86_64,
8ea4a34bd0b0a46277b5e077c89cbd86dfb09c48 is the first bad commit
commit 8ea4a34bd0b0a46277b5e077c89cbd86dfb09c48
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Sat Mar 5 08:50:45 2022 +
PR 104732: Simplify/fix DI mode logic expansion/splitting on -m32.
caused
FAIL: gcc.dg/lower-subreg-1.
Since eh_return doesn't work with stack realignment, disable SSE on
unwind-c.c and unwind-dw2.c to avoid stack realignment with the 4-byte
incoming stack to avoid SSE usage which is caused by
commit 609e8c492d62d92465460eae3d43dfc4b2c68288
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat Feb 26 14:17:23 2022 -0800
> Am 05.03.2022 um 09:08 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> :
>
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 02:58:37PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 05:08:30PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
1) shouldn't it give up for EDGE_ABNORMAL too? I mean, e.g.
f
On Sat, 2022-03-05 at 09:36 +0800, Paul Hua wrote:
> >
> > And based on the history of RISC-V port
> > (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2017-January/222595.html) the
> > process
> > for a new port seems:
> >
> > 1. Get a permission from the Steering Committee.
> > 2. Add one or two port maintai
Hi!
The following testcase fails to assemble due to clgte %r6,0(%r1,%r10)
insn not being accepted by assembler.
My rough understanding is that in the RSY-b insn format the spot
in other formats used for index registers is used instead for M3 what
kind of comparison it is, so this patch follows wha
Hi!
As mentioned in the PR, right now on powerpc* __SIZEOF_{FLOAT,IBM}128__
macros are predefined unconditionally, because {ieee,ibm}128_float_type_node
is always non-NULL, doesn't reflect whether __ieee128 or __ibm128 are
actually supported or not.
The following patch:
1) makes those {ieee,ibm}1
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 02:58:37PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 05:08:30PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > 1) shouldn't it give up for EDGE_ABNORMAL too? I mean, e.g.
> > > following a non-local goto forced edge from a noreturn call
> > > to a non-
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs, because the cond_andv* expander
has vector_operand predicates in both of the commutative inputs
and calls gen_andv*_mask which calls ix86_binary_operator_ok
in its condition, but nothing calls ix86_fixup_binary_operands_no_copy
during the expansion, which means con
