On 9/3/17, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I'm afraid your patchset has broken bootstrap on i686-unknown-freebsd10.3,
> in fact, it appears on FreeBSD in general (amd64-unknown-freebsd11 as
> well):
>
>
> /scratch/tmp/gerald/GCC-HEAD/gcc/builtins.c:4913:6: error: cannot pass
> object o
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 09:18:33PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Gerald Pfeifer writes:
>> > Hi Richard,
>> >
>> > I'm afraid your patchset has broken bootstrap on i686-unknown-freebsd10.3,
>> > in fact, it appears on FreeBSD in general (amd64-unknown-freebsd11 as
>>
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 09:18:33PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer writes:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I'm afraid your patchset has broken bootstrap on i686-unknown-freebsd10.3,
> > in fact, it appears on FreeBSD in general (amd64-unknown-freebsd11 as well):
>
> This sounds like the
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This sounds like the same as PR82045. Could you try the patch I posted
> here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg00062.html ?
Yep, that resolves it; tested per what you committed last night.
Thank you!
Gerald
Gerald Pfeifer writes:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I'm afraid your patchset has broken bootstrap on i686-unknown-freebsd10.3,
> in fact, it appears on FreeBSD in general (amd64-unknown-freebsd11 as well):
This sounds like the same as PR82045. Could you try the patch I posted
here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/g
Hi Richard,
I'm afraid your patchset has broken bootstrap on i686-unknown-freebsd10.3,
in fact, it appears on FreeBSD in general (amd64-unknown-freebsd11 as well):
/scratch/tmp/gerald/GCC-HEAD/gcc/builtins.c:4913:6: error: cannot pass
object of non-POD type 'scalar_int_mode' through variadi
On July 24, 2017 3:42:30 PM GMT+02:00, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 01:52:49PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:28:06AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> > From what I can tell so far it makes things much hard
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 01:52:49PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:28:06AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> > From what I can tell so far it makes things much harder to read.
> >> > Perhaps that is just because this is all new.
> >>
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:28:06AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > From what I can tell so far it makes things much harder to read.
>> > Perhaps that is just because this is all new.
>>
>> Which parts specifically? E.g. is it mostly the is_a (x, &y) changes?
>>
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:28:06AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > So what does it change in the interfaces we use? I couldn't find an
> > update of documentation, maybe I missed it (it's a huge series :-) )
> > An overview of the new interfaces (and how they are used) would help.
>
> You did
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:35:44AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> This series is an update of:
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00766.html
>>
>> It adds a group of wrapper classes around machine_mode for modes that
>> are kn
Hi Richard,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:35:44AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> This series is an update of:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00766.html
>
> It adds a group of wrapper classes around machine_mode for modes that
> are known to belong to, or need to belong to,
12 matches
Mail list logo
