Hi,
On 07/28/2011 08:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 05:27 PM, Richard Guenther wro
On 07/30/2011 10:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/28/2011 08:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 07/30/2011 10:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/28/2011 08:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 07/27/2011 01:55 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 01:54 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 07/27/2011 01:50 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> I have a patch set for bug 43513 - The stack pointer is adjusted twice.
>>>
>>> 01_pr43513.3.patch
>>> 02_pr43513.3.test.patch
>>> 03_pr43
Mikael Pettersson writes:
> 2011-07-28 Mikael Pettersson
>
> PR target/47908
> * config/m68k/m68k.c (m68k_override_options_after_change): New function.
> Disable instruction scheduling for non-ColdFire targets.
> (TARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS_AFTER_CHANGE): Define.
Ok for a
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:11 PM, William J. Schmidt
wrote:
> Here is the final version of the reassociation patch. There are two
> differences from the version I published on 7/27. I removed the
> function call from within the MAX macro per Michael's comment, and I
> changed the propagation of t
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/30/2011 10:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 07/28/2011 08:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard G
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/30/2011 10:21 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 07/28/2011 08:20 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 07/28/2011 06:25 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 12:22 PM, Richard G
Andreas Schwab writes:
> Mikael Pettersson writes:
>
> > 2011-07-28 Mikael Pettersson
> >
> >PR target/47908
> >* config/m68k/m68k.c (m68k_override_options_after_change): New function.
> >Disable instruction scheduling for non-ColdFire targets.
> >(TARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIO
Hello world,
the attached, rather self-explanatory patch fixes PR 48876.
OK for trunk?
Thomas
2011-07-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/48876
* expr.c (gfc_simplify_expr): If end of a string is less
than zero, set it to zero.
2011-07-30 Thomas Koenig
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 00:32, H.J. Lu wrote:
> The whole approach doesn't work. The testcase at
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721#c1
>
> shows GCC depends on transforming:
>
> (zero_extend:DI (plus:SI (FOO:SI) (const_int Y)))
>
> to
>
> (plus:DI (zero_extend:DI (FOO:SI)) (cons
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Looking a bit further, it looks like the C FE uses cfun->language only
> > to store the context of the outer function when faced with a nested
> > function. This is done by c_push_function_context, called by
> > c_parser_declaration_or_fndef. Otherwi
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:49:42PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> the attached, rather self-explanatory patch fixes PR 48876.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
Yes. If the problem exists on 4.6, can you apply the patch
to 4.6 as well.
--
Steve
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 08:33, Jack Howarth wrote:
> These patches fail to bootstrap on current gcc trunk (r176957) with...
>
The attached patch adds one extra line to convert the step to
unsigned. It passes bootstrap and has the following extra FAILS:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr45034.c e
Hi all,
the PR in the subject line contains several issues, and with the
"duplicate save" part fixed, the attached patch takes care of the
"missing type-bound procedure" regression (comment #6).
The problem is the following: When parsing a structure constructor, we
have to resolve the derived typ
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:29:43PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 06:17 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >>> --- gcc/target.h 2011-04-06 11:08:17 +
> >>> +++ gcc/target.h 2011-07-27 10:27:56 +
> >>> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
> >>>#define GCC_TARGET_H
> >>>
> >>>#include "tm.h"
>
Hi!
This patch implements the remaining changes from in between 3.1 draft and
3.1 final, in the light of the
http://www.openmp.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1199
clarification.
#pragma omp atomic
x = x + 6 + 2;
is now allowed, as well as
#pragma omp atomic capture
{ x = x | 7 + 1; v = x
Hi,
> > This patch fixes the build failure of cactusADM and dealII spec2006
> > benchmarks when autopar is enabled.
> > (for powerpc they fail only when -m32 is additionally enabled)
> >
> > The problem originated in canonicalize_loop_ivs, where we iterate the
> > header's phis in order to base al
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 06:34:34PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I don't think it is a good idea. A single long HARD_REG_SET is actually
> the common case, at least with 64-bit host, and while we can SRA a struct
> often, several ABIs pass structures less efficiently than plain longs.
And for big
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:41 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> X32 is 32bit. This patch checks TARGET_LP64 for SIZE_TYPE/PTRDIFF_TYPE.
> OK for trunk?
OK, if tested on x32. You didn't say how the patch was tested.
Thanks,
Uros.
Hello list,
the attached patch changes hard-reg-set.h in the following areas:
1) HARD_REG_SET is now always a struct so that it can be used in files
where we don't want to include tm.h. Many thanks to Paolo for providing
the idea and the original patch.
2) Code for specific HARD_REG_SET_LONG
Hi,
I'm committing as obvious a fix to this testcase, which is meant to test
a runtime issue (c++/13865).
Thanks,
Paolo.
/
2011-07-30 Paolo Carlini
PR testsuite/49917
* g++.dg/init/for1.C: Fix.
Index: g++.dg/init/for1.C
=
On Saturday 30 July 2011 17:43:03 Janus Weil wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the PR in the subject line contains several issues, and with the
> "duplicate save" part fixed, the attached patch takes care of the
> "missing type-bound procedure" regression (comment #6).
>
> The problem is the following: When p
Hello Steve,
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:49:42PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Hello world,
the attached, rather self-explanatory patch fixes PR 48876.
OK for trunk?
Yes. If the problem exists on 4.6, can you apply the patch
to 4.6 as well.
Applied to trunk and 4.6 (this was not a regressi
Ping
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this patch adds the ability for bitwise-truth operations to sink into
> use-statement, if it is a cast, if type of it is compatible.
>
> By this we can sink cases like
>
> _Bool D1, D2, D3;
> int R, x, y;
>
> D1 = (bool) x;
> D2
25 matches
Mail list logo
