On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 09:20 -0500, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 09:39 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 08:48 +0100, Richard Biener wrote
On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 09:39 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 08:48 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 3/2/21 9:52
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 08:48 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 3/2/21 9:52 AM, Jeff Law v
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 08:48 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 3/2/21 9:52 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:45:54PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > I think it's the D.6750 which is printed via
> >
> > else if (TREE_CODE (node) == DEBUG_EXPR_DECL)
> > {
> > if (flags & TDF_NOUID)
> > pp_string (pp, "D#");
> > else
> >
On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 16:23 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 08:48 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 3/2/21 9:52 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
>
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 04:23:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I think it's the D.6750 which is printed via
>
> else if (TREE_CODE (node) == DEBUG_EXPR_DECL)
> {
> if (flags & TDF_NOUID)
> pp_string (pp, "D#");
> else
> pp_printf (pp
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 08:48 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> > > On 3/2/21 9:52 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/1/21 1:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > The default dia
On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 08:48 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> > On 3/2/21 9:52 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/1/21 1:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > The default diagnostic tree printer relies on dump_generic_node
> > > > w
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 3/2/21 9:52 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/1/21 1:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> The default diagnostic tree printer relies on dump_generic_node which
> >> for some reason manages to clobber the diagnostic pretty-printer state
On 3/2/21 9:52 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 3/1/21 1:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The default diagnostic tree printer relies on dump_generic_node which
for some reason manages to clobber the diagnostic pretty-printer state
so we see garbled diagnostics like
/home/rguenther/src/trunk
On 3/1/21 1:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> The default diagnostic tree printer relies on dump_generic_node which
> for some reason manages to clobber the diagnostic pretty-printer state
> so we see garbled diagnostics like
>
> /home/rguenther/src/trunk/gcc/calls.c: In function 'expand_call':
> D
The default diagnostic tree printer relies on dump_generic_node which
for some reason manages to clobber the diagnostic pretty-printer state
so we see garbled diagnostics like
/home/rguenther/src/trunk/gcc/calls.c: In function 'expand_call':
D.6750.coeffs[0]'/home/rguenther/src/trunk/gcc/dojump.c:
13 matches
Mail list logo