On 11/27/2015 06:55 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> There is no official ABI for Ada so I guess that's not really a problem as
> long as it's documented on https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html.
It's still surprising to make such a far-reaching change in a minor
release, I think.
Florian
> So, I'm not familiar with Ada 'fat pointers' but if that is one -
> well, it's a record, with an alignment that the 'new' AAPCS now
> ignores, so yes the ABI has changed between gcc 5.1 and 5.2, rather
> more significantly for Ada than for C.
Yes, XUP suffixed types are fat pointers and they are
On 26 November 2015 at 14:00, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 6 November 2015 at 16:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> In any case, to manually reproduce, compile
>> gnatmake -g -gnatws macrosub.adb
>> with GCC 5.1.1 (before the ARM changes) and then try to run that process
>> against
>> GCC 5.2.1 (after
On 6 November 2015 at 16:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> In any case, to manually reproduce, compile
> gnatmake -g -gnatws macrosub.adb
> with GCC 5.1.1 (before the ARM changes) and then try to run that process
> against
> GCC 5.2.1 (after the ARM changes) libgnat-5.so, which is what make check
> do
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:48:02PM +, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> Sorry Jakub, can you clarify please, how to reproduce this failure? I've
> just bootstrapped gcc-5-branch with ada and run the Ada testsuite, which has
> build me gcc/ada/rts/libgnat{.a,.so,-5.so}, and I see all tests passing.
> (Same
On 04/11/15 13:13, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 05:38:35PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
Trying to push these now (svn!), patch 2 is going first.
I realize my second iteration of patch 1/2, dropped the testcases from the
first version. Okay to include those as per
https://gcc.gnu.
On 11/04/2015 02:13 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 05:38:35PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>> Trying to push these now (svn!), patch 2 is going first.
>>
>> I realize my second iteration of patch 1/2, dropped the testcases from the
>> first version. Okay to include those as per
>
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 05:38:35PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> Trying to push these now (svn!), patch 2 is going first.
>
> I realize my second iteration of patch 1/2, dropped the testcases from the
> first version. Okay to include those as per
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg002
Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
This is OK, the ada testing can go in parallel and we should take this in to
not delay rc1 any further.
I can confirm, no regressions in check-ada (gcc/testsuite/gnats and
gcc/testsuite/acats) following an ada bootstrap on cortex-a15/neon/hard-float.
That's the
Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 06/07/15 17:38, Alan Lawrence wrote:
Trying to push these now (svn!), patch 2 is going first.
I realize my second iteration of patch 1/2, dropped the testcases from the
first version. Okay to include those as per
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg00
On 06/07/15 17:38, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> Trying to push these now (svn!), patch 2 is going first.
>
> I realize my second iteration of patch 1/2, dropped the testcases from the
> first version. Okay to include those as per
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg00215.html ?
Yeah the
Trying to push these now (svn!), patch 2 is going first.
I realize my second iteration of patch 1/2, dropped the testcases from the first
version. Okay to include those as per
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg00215.html ?
Cheers, Alan
Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 06/07/15 12
On 06/07/15 12:00, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> Technically this is incorrect since AGGREGATE_TYPE_P includes ARRAY_TYPE
>>> and ARRAY_TYPE doesn't have TYPE_FIELDS. I doubt we could reach that
>>> case though (unless there's a language that allows passing arrays by value).
>>
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Technically this is incorrect since AGGREGATE_TYPE_P includes ARRAY_TYPE
and ARRAY_TYPE doesn't have TYPE_FIELDS. I doubt we could reach that
case though (unless there's a language that allows passing arrays by value).
Ada passes small array types by the method specified b
Richard Biener wrote:
I also believe this loop is equivalent to checking TYPE_ALIGN of the aggregate
type?
Jakub is correct: the intention is to discard any top-level alignment attribute
on a struct declaration.
I'll double check your wording in the abi document, but it seems to be unclea
> Technically this is incorrect since AGGREGATE_TYPE_P includes ARRAY_TYPE
> and ARRAY_TYPE doesn't have TYPE_FIELDS. I doubt we could reach that
> case though (unless there's a language that allows passing arrays by value).
Ada passes small array types by the method specified by the pass_by_refe
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:57:36PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> + if (!AGGREGATE_TYPE_P (type))
> +return TYPE_ALIGN (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type)) > PARM_BOUNDARY;
> +
> + for (tree field = TYPE_FIELDS (type); field; field = DECL_CHAIN
> >>> (field))
> +if (DECL_AL
On July 3, 2015 10:43:30 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>On 03/07/15 19:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On July 3, 2015 6:11:13 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>>> On 03/07/15 16:26, Alan Lawrence wrote:
These include tests of structs, scalars, and vectors - only
general-pur
On 03/07/15 19:24, Richard Biener wrote:
> On July 3, 2015 6:11:13 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>> On 03/07/15 16:26, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>>> These include tests of structs, scalars, and vectors - only
>>> general-purpose registers are affected by the ABI rules for
>> alignment,
>>> b
On July 3, 2015 6:11:13 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>On 03/07/15 16:26, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>> These include tests of structs, scalars, and vectors - only
>> general-purpose registers are affected by the ABI rules for
>alignment,
>> but we can restrict the vector test to use the base A
On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 04:26:02PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> These include tests of structs, scalars, and vectors - only general-purpose
> registers are affected by the ABI rules for alignment, but we can restrict
> the vector test to use the base AAPCS.
>
> Prior to this patch, align2.c, alig
On 03/07/15 16:26, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> These include tests of structs, scalars, and vectors - only
> general-purpose registers are affected by the ABI rules for alignment,
> but we can restrict the vector test to use the base AAPCS.
>
> Prior to this patch, align2.c, align3.c and align_rec1.c w
These include tests of structs, scalars, and vectors - only general-purpose
registers are affected by the ABI rules for alignment, but we can restrict the
vector test to use the base AAPCS.
Prior to this patch, align2.c, align3.c and align_rec1.c were failing (the
latter showing an internal in
23 matches
Mail list logo
