On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> I resend patch within new thread.
> Recent fallout about sibcall was caused by using 'm' constraint for
> sibcalls. By this wrongly combines happened on reload-pass. That
> patch introduces new constraint 'B' for sibcall_memory_operand.
>
> Cha
> I think it is really weird if a coding style warning is included in -Wall.
I fully agree. In top of that the patch looks like a blind enforcement of this
coding style.
What is the rationale of
+ SUBROUTINE S2
+ USE foo, ONLY: bar ! { dg-bogus "has no ONLY qualifier" }
+ END SUBROUTINE
?
Maxim Kuvyrkov writes:
> @@ -7535,28 +7530,24 @@ ia64_variable_issue (FILE *dump ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> can be chosen. */
>
> static int
> -ia64_first_cycle_multipass_dfa_lookahead_guard (rtx insn)
> +ia64_first_cycle_multipass_dfa_lookahead_guard (rtx insn, int ready_index)
> {
>gcc_as
Richard,
This patch:
- adds the for TARGET_CALL_FUSAGE_CONTAINS_NON_CALLEE_CLOBBERS required
clobbers in CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE,
- sets TARGET_CALL_FUSAGE_CONTAINS_NON_CALLEE_CLOBBERS to true, which enables
the fuse-caller-save optimisation, and
- adds an aarch64 fuse-caller-save test-case.
On 30-05-14 10:20, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
Marcus,
when building for aarch64-linux-gnu with --enable-checking=yes,rtl, I run
into the following error:
...
In file included from src/libgcc/libgcc2.c:56:0:
src/libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function
Hi,
Currently GCC only emits DWARF debug information (DW_TAG_lexical_block
DIEs) for compound statements containing significant local declarations.
However, code coverage tools that process the DWARF debug information to
implement block/path coverage need more complete lexical block information
2014-06-01 9:28 GMT+02:00 Uros Bizjak :
>
> Please make this a two-letter constraint (perhaps "Bs"). We are
> already short in single-letter constraints.
Sure, I did. I committed patch at revision 22.
Kai
Richard,
This patch:
- adds the for TARGET_CALL_FUSAGE_CONTAINS_NON_CALLEE_CLOBBERS required
clobbers in CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE,
- sets TARGET_CALL_FUSAGE_CONTAINS_NON_CALLEE_CLOBBERS to true, which enables
the fuse-caller-save optimisation, and
- adds an arm fuse-caller-save test-case.
Bu
On 31/05/14 08:47 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
This is the libstdc++ and libstdc++ testsuite part.
Apologies for not sending this to libstdc++.
This time you didn't CC gcc-patches.
All libstdc++ patches need to go to gcc-patches and libstdc++, it's
not complicated :-)
Index: include/std/
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
This should probably go on the 4.9 branch too, although we could leave
the old default cosntructor semantics and just fix the conversion
operator.
commit a10c692b32082fa5cf00f2cdc92d44ffa79e3d43
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Sun Jun 1 14:19:07 2014 +01
2014-06-01 19:24 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely :
> Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
>
> This should probably go on the 4.9 branch too, although we could leave
> the old default cosntructor semantics and just fix the conversion
> operator.
Looking at the comparison functions of basic_string_vie
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014, Daniel Krügler wrote:
2014-06-01 19:24 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely :
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
This should probably go on the 4.9 branch too, although we could leave
the old default cosntructor semantics and just fix the conversion
operator.
Looking at the co
Hello!
2014-06-01 Uros Bizjak
* gcc.target/i386/sibcall-2.c (dg-final): Properly escape '[' and ']'
in scan-assembler-not string.
* gcc.target/i386/sibcall-3.c (dg-final): Ditto.
* gcc.target/i386/sibcall-4.c (dg-final): Ditto.
* gcc.target/i386/sibcall-6.c (dg-final): Ditt
Hi Graham,
Thanks for the patch. I agree with what Richard and Joseph said. Also...
I think it'd be better to keep the p5600 bits separate and wait until
the main p5600 patch has gone in. It looks like it uses a different
naming scheme for the insn reservations.
Graham Stott writes:
> +(defi
Hello!
This change renames two @internal constraints to free two letters.
2014-06-01 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/constraints.md (Bw): Rename from 'w'.
(Bz): Rename from 'z'.
* config/i386/i386.md: Change 'w' to 'Bw' and 'z' to 'Bz' globally.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu {,-m32} and
Hello!
Plus a more modern dg-do target selector instead of dg-require-effective-target.
2014-06-01 Uros Bizjak
* gcc.target/i386/sibcall-2.c: Xfail dg-final scan-assembler-not,
not compilation.
* gcc.target/i386/sibcall-4.c: Ditto.
* gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save.c: Add -mr
2014-06-01 Jonathan Wakely
* include/bits/uses_allocator.h (__uses_allocator_helper): Simplify.
(__uses_allocator_arg): Remove unused type.
(__uses_alloc0): Turn into a trivial type.
(__uses_alloc): Add missing template parameter in primary template.
(__
2014-06-02 0:35 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely :
> 2014-06-01 Jonathan Wakely
>
> * include/bits/uses_allocator.h (__uses_allocator_helper): Simplify.
> (__uses_allocator_arg): Remove unused type.
> (__uses_alloc0): Turn into a trivial type.
> (__uses_alloc): Add missi
On 02/06/14 00:46 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
Some of the changes remove the explicit access-specifier (public) from
base classes, such as
: public false_type
=>
: false_type
In the affected examples this does not introduce a change of meaning
(because the classes are declared as structs), but
2014-06-02 0:50 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely :
> On 02/06/14 00:46 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
>>
>> Some of the changes remove the explicit access-specifier (public) from
>> base classes, such as
>>
>> : public false_type
>> =>
>> : false_type
>>
>> In the affected examples this does not introduce a
Hi,
On 06/02/2014 12:52 AM, Daniel Krügler wrote:
My formulation was intentionally tentative, because I never searched
for that coding rule. Maybe Paolo could help to clarify.
As far as I remember, we never explicitly discussed that coding rule,
it's largely an historical accident. Thus I woul
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 15:49 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 08:09:22AM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 14:07 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 09:36 +0200, Thomas Schwinge
This patch addresses PR 53119 (-Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about
universal zero initializer {0}). As a result, initializations in C of
the form struct foo a = { 0 }; will not trigger warnings from
-Wmissing-braces or -Wmissing-field-initializers.
The detection for constructor_zeroinit has been
> What is the rationale of
>
> + SUBROUTINE S2
> + USE foo, ONLY: bar ! { dg-bogus "has no ONLY qualifier" }
> + END SUBROUTINE
This explicitly tests that no bogus error message is issued for a use statement
that has an only qualifier ?
There was some discussion on what to do, but has there been a decision on
how to fix this yet? Or is it fixed upstream and we just need to merge
that fix too?
Yuri needs to send the patch to llvm-commits.
I think I already did that: D3911
-Y
> Why do you want -fno-math-errno to be the default for gfortran?
because it was with rth's commit? This makes sense also because errno is a
variable that is defined for C, and not accessible from Fortran. Why would you
want -fmath-errno to be the default ?
> if (flag_associative_math == -1)
>
Looks like now function does not return anything for ARM case? I'd say
we should replace this pc = ... with return like all other cases, the
code is just asking for trouble.
--- libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_stacktrace.cc (revision
209878)
+++ libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sani
PR61271 showed that this warning, recently added to clang, is quite
useful and detected several reckless cases in the GCC codebase.
This patch adds this warning even for GCC. Due to PR61271,
it's not a part of -Wall, that would break the bootstrap, but
after that is fixed, I think we want this war
Ping.
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:30:51AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:27:03PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > In this PR the issue is that we reject (valid) code such as
> > _Alignas (long long) long long foo;
> > with -m32, because we trip this condition:
> >
> >a
29 matches
Mail list logo
