> Am 06.07.2025 um 02:22 schrieb Andrew Pinski :
>
> For GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS, we don't currently test LHS for some invalid cases.
> In this case all constants and ADDR_EXPR should be invalid on the LHS.
> Also for vector (non-empty) constructors, the LHS needs to be an
> is_gimple_reg.
>
> Thi
> Am 05.07.2025 um 17:41 schrieb Andrew Pinski :
>
> The cdce code introduces a test for a NaN using the EQ_EXPR code.
> The problem is EQ_EXPR can cause an exception with non-call exceptions
> and signaling nans turned on. This is now correctly rejected by the verfier
> since r16-241-g4c40e3d
On 7/6/2025 12:49 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Jul 06, 2025 at 08:43:06AM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote:
Hi Steve,
On 7/6/2025 12:25 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 05:20:02PM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote:
diff --git a/libgfortran/configure b/libgfortran/configure
index 9898a94a372..971f1e
On Sun, Jul 06, 2025 at 08:43:06AM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On 7/6/2025 12:25 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 05:20:02PM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote:
> > > diff --git a/libgfortran/configure b/libgfortran/configure
> > > index 9898a94a372..971f1e9df5e 100755
> > > --- a/li
On Sat, 2025-07-05 at 14:10 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 11:10:05PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > Possibly this is https://gcc.gnu.org/PR101882. Specifically comment 5
> > from Segher:
> >
> > "The LRA change is correct AFAICS. But combine makes a change that
Hi Steve,
On 7/6/2025 12:25 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 05:20:02PM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote:
diff --git a/libgfortran/configure b/libgfortran/configure
index 9898a94a372..971f1e9df5e 100755
--- a/libgfortran/configure
+++ b/libgfortran/configure
@@ -16413,7 +16413,7 @@ else
For GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS, we don't currently test LHS for some invalid cases.
In this case all constants and ADDR_EXPR should be invalid on the LHS.
Also for vector (non-empty) constructors, the LHS needs to be an is_gimple_reg.
This adds the checks.
Also this fixes the following gimple testcase so i
Pushed.
Gerald
---
htdocs/codingconventions.html | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/htdocs/codingconventions.html b/htdocs/codingconventions.html
index 81bf6bbb..0bf70895 100644
--- a/htdocs/codingconventions.html
+++ b/htdocs/codingconventions.html
@@ -724,
Pushed.
Gerald
---
htdocs/news.html | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/htdocs/news.html b/htdocs/news.html
index df1a969c..f2d16c08 100644
--- a/htdocs/news.html
+++ b/htdocs/news.html
@@ -493,7 +493,7 @@
GCC internals documentation
[2013-01-23] wwwdocs:
Th
Hi!
On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 11:10:05PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> Possibly this is https://gcc.gnu.org/PR101882. Specifically comment 5
> from Segher:
>
> "The LRA change is correct AFAICS. But combine makes a change that
> violates the earlyclobber... I need to do something about that, too."
On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 08:46:31AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I think we want these diagnostics enabled by default; I don't feel strongly
> about unconditional pedwarn vs. permerror.
So like this then?
2025-07-05 Jakub Jelinek
PR c++/84009
* parser.cc (cp_parser_decompositi
Paul,
Either resolve.cc has sufficiently evolved since you
submitted your patch or the patch is somehow mangled.
When I apply it to my tree for resolve.cc, I see
Hunk #1 succeeded at 3919.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 4223.
Hunk #3 succeeded at 7940 (offset -28 lines).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 8068 (offset
Pushed.
Gerald
---
htdocs/readings.html | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/htdocs/readings.html b/htdocs/readings.html
index 3b0556e6..251011e0 100644
--- a/htdocs/readings.html
+++ b/htdocs/readings.html
@@ -604,9 +604,6 @@ names.
- http://compilerconnection.com";>Link
On Sat, Jul 05, 2025 at 05:20:02PM +0800, Yuao Ma wrote:
>
> diff --git a/libgfortran/configure b/libgfortran/configure
> index 9898a94a372..971f1e9df5e 100755
> --- a/libgfortran/configure
> +++ b/libgfortran/configure
> @@ -16413,7 +16413,7 @@ else
> We can't simply define LARGE_OFF_T to b
The cdce code introduces a test for a NaN using the EQ_EXPR code.
The problem is EQ_EXPR can cause an exception with non-call exceptions
and signaling nans turned on. This is now correctly rejected by the verfier
since r16-241-g4c40e3d7b9152f.
The fix is seperate out the comparison into its own sta
On Sat, 2025-07-05 at 17:55 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-07-05 at 11:20 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote:
> > For the gcc.target/loongarch/bitwise-shift-reassoc-clobber.c,
> > some extensions are eliminated in ext_dce in commit r16-1835.
> >
> > This will result in the following rtx being generat
On 01/07/2025 22:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 18:36, François Dumont wrote:
I eventually wonder if it is such a big deal to add the new symbols for
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG mode.
I like this version much more than the one trying to duplicate symbols with asm.
Here is the patch d
Hello Andre,
I get a regression on this testcase with a patch that is otherwise
regression-free.
I think the testcase is invalid.
It does:
type(container), allocatable :: list(:)
list = [list, new_elem(5)]
so it's using the variable 'list' unallocated.
The original testcase in the
On 7/3/25 10:43 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/2/25 7:58 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK
for trunk?
-- >8 --
Here the flag -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks causes the trivial address
comparis
On 7/5/25 2:20 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
https://eel.is/c++draft/stmt.ranged#2
says that in for-range-declaration only type-specifier or constexpr
can appear. As the following testcases show, we've emitted some
diagnostics in most cases, but not for static/thread_local (the patch
handles __t
On 2025-07-05 07:23, Richard Biener wrote:
OK, should I revert right away or can we wait till Qing returns on Monday?
Monday is OK with me.
Thanks, so I thought about this some more and I think when I said in
bugzilla:
"In fact, maybe the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE handling in objsz probably needs
> Am 05.07.2025 um 12:19 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar :
>
> On 2025-07-05 02:45, Richard Biener wrote:
Am 04.07.2025 um 19:57 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar :
>>>
>>> On 2025-07-04 08:12, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 2025-07-04 08:08, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
On 2025-07-05 02:45, Richard Biener wrote:
Am 04.07.2025 um 19:57 schrieb Siddhesh Poyarekar :
On 2025-07-04 08:12, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 2025-07-04 08:08, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
I forgot to add the PR number to the ChangeLog entries, I've fixed it in my
commit m
On Sat, 2025-07-05 at 11:20 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote:
> For the gcc.target/loongarch/bitwise-shift-reassoc-clobber.c,
> some extensions are eliminated in ext_dce in commit r16-1835.
>
> This will result in the following rtx being generated in the
> combine pass:
> (insn 12 10 15 2 (set (reg/v:DI 23
Hi all,
This patch introduces a fallback implementation for trigonometric
pi-based functions. This implementation supports float, double, and long
double data types.
I've revised the test cases for r4 and r8 types, and all tests passed
successfully on the aarch64-linux platform. If this look
25 matches
Mail list logo
