Hi,
On 09/11/2015 10:05 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/11/2015 03:11 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
this is a slightly reworked (simplified) version of a patch I sent a
while ago. The issue is that we are not enforcing at all 5.3.4/2 in the
parser, thus we end up rejecting the first test below with a
[Sorry for the delay]
> gen_rtx_CONST_VECTOR ensures that there is a single instance of:
>
>(const_vector:M [(const_int -1) ... (const_int -1)])
>
> for each M, so pointer equality with CONSTM1_RTX is enough. Also,
> HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT == 32 is doubly dead: HOST_WIDE_INT is always
> 64
On 11 September 2015 at 23:05, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Hmm, I think we really ought to accept
>
> new auto { 2 }
>
> to be consistent with all the other recent changes to treat { elt } like
> (elt); this seems like a piece that was missed from DR 1467. Do you agree,
> Ville?
Yes. I thought we
On 11 September 2015 at 18:39, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 08:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> Solaris 10 doesn't follow POSIX in accepting a null pointer as the
>> second argument to realpath(), so allocate a buffer for it.
>
>
> FWIW, the NULL requirement is new in Issue 7. In Issue 6,
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 3:10 AM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Richard Biener
Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida;
Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Spl
Three recent PRs (67527, 67535, 67536) have reported issues latent issues in
libgfortran, where C code relies on undefined behavior: (i) large left shift of
signed value, and (ii) calls to memcpy(dst,src,len) where src == NULL and len
== 0.
After confirming that all three issues are indeed unde
> Some targets have -mbranch-cost to allow overriding the default costing.
> visium has a branch cost of 10!
Yeah, the GR5 variant is pipelined but has no branch prediction; moreover
there is an additional adverse effect coming for the instructions bus...
> Several ports have a cost of 6 eit
> Richard, Eric, any objections?
Do we really need to promote to 64-bit if TARGET_ARCH64? Most 32-bit
instructions are still available. Otherwise this looks good to me.
You need to update https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html
--
Eric Botcazou
Hi,
This is a clean-up and code re-factoring patch; NFC intended.
a) The arcane version specs that attempted to figure out a version-min on the
basis of inspecting other c/l flags have been dead for some time (since the
driver started inserting a default); so let's lose those.
b) We'll need ac
The attached change fixes an ICE caused by pa_output_move_double's failure to
handle a DImode high
const_int operand, (high:DI (const_int 864 [0x141dd76000])). The need
to handle this operand
form in pa_output_move_double is quite infrequent, so the problem has gone
unnoticed for many y
Hi,
At present, we have somewhat strange sysroot in that --sysroot causes -isysroot
to be passed to cc1* ...
... but no -syslibroot for collect2/ld.
Conversely, -isysroot /XYZZY causes this to be passed as -isysroot to cc1* and
-syslibroot to collect/ld.
AFAIU the options, it ought to be the ot
> * fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc): Move simplifying of comparisons
> against the highest or lowest possible integer ...
> * match.pd: ... as patterns here.
This incorrectly dropped the calls to omit_one_operand_loc, resulting in the
failure of the attached Ada test: if the oper
This just removes the problematic test. Applied on the mainline.
2015-09-12 Eric Botcazou
PR ada/66965
* gnat.dg/specs/addr1.ads: Remove.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 09/12/2015 04:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11 September 2015 at 18:39, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/11/2015 08:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Solaris 10 doesn't follow POSIX in accepting a null pointer as the
second argument to realpath(), so allocate a buffer for it.
FWIW, the NULL requ
On 09/12/2015 12:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/12/2015 04:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11 September 2015 at 18:39, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/11/2015 08:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Solaris 10 doesn't follow POSIX in accepting a null pointer as the
second argument to realpath(), so all
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:29:05AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/12/2015 12:12 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >12 years ago it was decided that -Wunused-variable shouldn't warn about
> >static const variables because some code used const static char rcsid[]
> >strings which were never used but wa
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 16:04:09 +0200
>> Richard, Eric, any objections?
>
> Do we really need to promote to 64-bit if TARGET_ARCH64? Most 32-bit
> instructions are still available. Otherwise this looks good to me.
No, we don't, we can just promote to 32-bit. I'll make th
17 matches
Mail list logo
