> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:50:34AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >>/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20140714/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C:5:1:
> > >> error: non-constant condition for static assertion
> > >>/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20140714/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C:5:1:
> >
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:50:34AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20140714/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C:5:1:
> >> error: non-constant condition for static assertion
> >>/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20140714/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C:5:1:
> >> error:
On 07/14/2014 04:36 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20140714/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C:5:1:
error: non-constant condition for static assertion
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20140714/gcc
> Jan Hubicka writes:
>
> > * cgraph.h (symtab_node): Add nonzero_address.
> > (decl_in_symtab_p): Break out from ...
> > (symtab_get_node): ... here.
> > * fold-const.c: Include cgraph.h
> > (tree_single_nonzero_warnv_p): Use symtab to determine
> > if symbol is non-zero.
Jan Hubicka writes:
> * cgraph.h (symtab_node): Add nonzero_address.
> (decl_in_symtab_p): Break out from ...
> (symtab_get_node): ... here.
> * fold-const.c: Include cgraph.h
> (tree_single_nonzero_warnv_p): Use symtab to determine
> if symbol is non-zero.
>
Hi,
this is variant of patch I comitted (the change is only testsuite compensation
for pr36902 and 44024) and updated predicate name to nonzero_address
Honza
* cgraph.h (symtab_node): Add nonzero_address.
(decl_in_symtab_p): Break out from ...
(symtab_get_node): ... here.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > > > The problem is that the patch fails testcases that assume we do such
> > > > folding at parsing
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > ./testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:FAIL: gcc.dg/pr36901-1.c (test for excess
> > > >
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > The problem is that the patch fails testcases that assume we do such
> > > folding at parsing
> > > time.
> > >
> > > ./testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:FAIL: gcc.dg/pr36901-1.c (test for excess errors)
> > > ./testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:FAIL: gcc.dg/pr36901-2.c (te
> > The problem is that the patch fails testcases that assume we do such
> > folding at parsing
> > time.
> >
> > ./testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:FAIL: gcc.dg/pr36901-1.c (test for excess errors)
> > ./testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:FAIL: gcc.dg/pr36901-2.c (test for excess errors)
> > ./testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum:FAI
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hello,
> fold-const contains quite few confused statements that deal with WEAK
> visibility and aliases:
>
> static int
> simple_operand_p (const_tree exp)
> {
> /* Strip any conversions that don't change the machine mode. */
> STRIP_NOPS (exp);
>
Hello,
fold-const contains quite few confused statements that deal with WEAK
visibility and aliases:
static int
simple_operand_p (const_tree exp)
{
/* Strip any conversions that don't change the machine mode. */
STRIP_NOPS (exp);
return (CONSTANT_CLASS_P (exp)
|| TREE_CODE (exp)
11 matches
Mail list logo