options-save.c: In function 'void cl_target_option_save(cl_target_option*,
gcc_options*, gcc_options*)':
options-save.c:8526:26: error: unused variable 'mask' [-Werror=unused-variable]
8526 | unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT mask = 0;
| ^~~~
options-save.c: In function 'voi
On October 5, 2020 9:08:41 AM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 09:16:00PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
>wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 09:13:29AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> > This breaks ia64:
>> >
>> > In file included from ./tm.h:23,
>> >
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 09:16:00PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 09:13:29AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > This breaks ia64:
> >
> > In file included from ./tm.h:23,
> > from ../../gcc/gencheck.c:23:
> > ./options.h:7816:40: error: ISO C++
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 09:13:29AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> This breaks ia64:
>
> In file included from ./tm.h:23,
> from ../../gcc/gencheck.c:23:
> ./options.h:7816:40: error: ISO C++ forbids zero-size array 'explicit_mask'
> [-Werror=pedantic]
> 7816 | unsigned HOST_WI
This breaks ia64:
In file included from ./tm.h:23,
from ../../gcc/gencheck.c:23:
./options.h:7816:40: error: ISO C++ forbids zero-size array 'explicit_mask'
[-Werror=pedantic]
7816 | unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT explicit_mask[0];
|^
./op
On October 3, 2020 10:41:26 AM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:21:12PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
>via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> > > Sure, no problem at all. In that case I stop to investigate
>further and
>> > > wait for you.
>> >
>> > Here is a patch that imple
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:21:12PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > Sure, no problem at all. In that case I stop to investigate further and
> > > wait for you.
> >
> > Here is a patch that implements that.
> >
> > Can you please check if it fixes the s390x regress
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 10:46:33AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 03:24:08PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
> Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:39:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:21:44PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frieling
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 03:24:08PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:39:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:21:44PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > > I think the problem boils down that on S/390 we disti
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:39:11PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:21:44PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > I think the problem boils down that on S/390 we distinguish between four
> > states of a flag: explicitely set to yes/no and implicitely set to
> > yes/n
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:21:44PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> I think the problem boils down that on S/390 we distinguish between four
> states of a flag: explicitely set to yes/no and implicitely set to
> yes/no. If set explicitely, the option wins. For example, the options
> `-
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:32:55AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 09:50:00PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
> Gcc-patches wrote:
> > This patch breaks quite a view test cases (target-attribute/tattr-*) on
> > IBM Z. Having a look at function cl_target_option_restore
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 09:50:00PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus via
Gcc-patches wrote:
> This patch breaks quite a view test cases (target-attribute/tattr-*) on
> IBM Z. Having a look at function cl_target_option_restore reveals that
> some members of opts_set are reduced to 1 or 0 dependin
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 09:50:00PM +0200, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> This patch breaks quite a view test cases (target-attribute/tattr-*) on
> IBM Z. Having a look at function cl_target_option_restore reveals that
> some members of opts_set are reduced to 1 or 0 depending on whether a
>
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:29:22AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:29:52AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 09:46:37AM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > I'm seeing an ICE with this new test on mos
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 08:33, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:29:52AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 09:46:37AM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'm seei
On Sun, 13 Sep 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:29:52AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 09:46:37AM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > I'm seeing an ICE with this new test on most of my arm configurations,
> > > fo
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:29:52AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 09:46:37AM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > I'm seeing an ICE with this new test on most of my arm configurations,
> > for instance:
> > --target arm-none-linux-gnueabi --wit
18 matches
Mail list logo
