On Jul 19, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
wrote:
> The patch fixes a couple of testsuite failures that show up for the
> avr target because it has different sizes for longs and pointers (4
> bytes versus 2), by explicitly disabling the warning for avr.
>
> Does this make sense?
I
On 07/20/2016 10:58 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
After patch @238301, issue reported in PR65206 is also exposed by case
gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-store-move-1.c. This patch xfail the case for the moment.
Test result checked, is it OK?
Thanks,
bin
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2016-07-14 Bin Cheng
On July 20, 2016 6:54:48 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
>On 07/20/16 18:20, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/20/2016 09:41 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> On 07/20/16 12:44, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As discussed at
>https://gcc.gn
On 07/20/2016 07:52 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/18/2016 11:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/06/2016 06:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
@@ -2911,6 +2923,14 @@ cxx_eval_indirect_ref (const constexpr_ctx
*ctx, tree t,
if (*non_constan
Hey,
As a first step of my GSOC project
(https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/replacelibibertywithgnulib) I have imported
the gnulib library inside the gcc tree. I have created gnulib as a top
level directory which contains the necessary scripts to import the
modules. It also contains the necessary Makefile.in
* include/std/istream (operator>>(basic_istream&&, _Tp&)): Adjust
to use perfect forwarding (LWG 2328).
* testsuite/27_io/rvalue_streams.cc: Test perfect forwarding.
* doc/xml/manual/intro.xml: Document DR 2328 status.
Teted x86_64-linux, committed to trunk.
commit
On 07/20/16 20:08, Richard Biener wrote:
> On July 20, 2016 6:54:48 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
>> Yes. That is another interesting observation. I think, originally this
>> flag was introduced by Jan Hubicka, and should mean, "it may be alloca
>> or a weak alias to alloca or maybe e
With the last change the not-aligned symbol ref markers are always set
for modes with size zero. This is wrong since for larl the size of
the access does not matter. This patch removes that check entirely
from s390_encode_section_info. Modes with a size of 0 get rejected in
s390_check_symref_ali
* include/std/atomic (atomic_int8_t, atomic_uint8_t, atomic_int16_t)
(atomic_uint16_t, atomic_int32_t, atomic_uint32_t, atomic_int64_t)
(atomic_uint64_t): Define (LWG 2441).
* testsuite/29_atomics/headers/atomic/std_c++0x_neg.cc: Remove empty
lines.
On 24/05/16 17:02 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
* include/bits/stl_queue.h (priority_queue::value_compare): Define.
This is only Tentatively Ready but I don't think there's any harm in
making the change now. Libc++ have been shipping this for years,
without realising it wasn't actually i
On 07/20/2016 12:30 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 07/20/16 20:08, Richard Biener wrote:
On July 20, 2016 6:54:48 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
Yes. That is another interesting observation. I think, originally this
flag was introduced by Jan Hubicka, and should mean, "it may be alloca
o
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/20/2016 07:52 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/18/2016 11:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/06/2016 06:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>
> @@ -2911
On 07/20/2016 10:54 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Yes. That is another interesting observation. I think, originally this
flag was introduced by Jan Hubicka, and should mean, "it may be alloca
or a weak alias to alloca or maybe even something different".
But some of the later optimizations use it i
On 07/20/2016 10:30 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 07/20/16 18:15, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/20/2016 05:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Is it OK after boot-strap and regression-testing?
I think the __builtin_setjmp change is wrong - __builtin_setjmp is
_not_ 'setjmp' it is part of the GCC internal mac
Le 20/07/2016 à 11:39, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
Hi Mikael,
+ if(st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE)
+new_st.op = EXEC_FAIL_IMAGE;
+ else
+gcc_unreachable();
You can use
gcc_assert (st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE);
foo...;
instead of
if (st == ST_FAIL_IMAGE)
foo...;
e:
=== acats Summary ===
# of expected passes2320
# of unexpected failures0
Native configuration is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
=== gnat tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: gnat.dg/vect3.adb scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops"
On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 17:49 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
[...]
> Also, this patch currently makes the assumption (in charset.c)
> that there's a 1:1 correspondence between bytes in the source
> character set and bytes in the execution character set. This can
> be the case if both are, say, UTF-8,
On 20 July 2016 at 19:21, ayush goel wrote:
> Hey,
> As a first step of my GSOC project
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/replacelibibertywithgnulib) I have imported
> the gnulib library inside the gcc tree. I have created gnulib as a top
> level directory which contains the necessary scripts to import
> Very few targets continue to use SJLJ eh (perhaps just cygwin/mingw).
> *But* I think the Ada front-end explicitly uses SJLJ EH, so if you want
> to get some smoke testing, the Ada testsuite is probably the place to go.
Right, the Ada front-end uses an EH scheme directly based on __builtin_setjm
On 06/22/2016 02:48 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 06/22/16 21:51, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/19/2016 07:25 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
ping...
As this discussion did not make any progress, I just attached
the latest version of my patch with the the changes that
Vladimir proposed.
Boot-strapped a
On 06/22/2016 08:52 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
PR c/71613 identifies a problem where we fail to report this enum:
enum { e1 = LLONG_MIN };
with -pedantic, due to LLONG_MIN being inside a system header.
This patch updates the C and C++ frontends to use the location of the
name as the primary lo
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> This needs a template testcase.
Did you get this reply before? It bounced from the mailing list, but
I thought you would have gotten it directly.
Jason
On 07/20/2016 08:04 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
Fix target library tests when gcc is built using --with-build-sysroot.
The dejagnu find_gcc function cannot handle if CC needs extra flags
like --sysroot. So for testing target libraries use the same CC that
was used for building the target libs. This
Hi!
In PR69315, we've recently allowed recursive genericization, unfortunately
the bc_label handling isn't prepared for that, we ICE if we cp_genericize
some function (usually newly instantiated method) while inside of some loop
in the outer function.
Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_6
As suggested by Jakub.
2016-07-20 Uros Bizjak
* hwint.h (HOST_WIDE_INT_0): New define.
(HOST_WIDE_INT_0U): Ditto.
* double-int.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_0 instead of (HOST_WIDE_INT) 0.
* dse.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_0U instead of (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) 0.
* simplify-rtx.c: Ditto.
On 06/28/2016 12:18 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
This patch improves vectorizer in order to handle possible infinite loops by
versioning. Its changes fall in three categories.
A) Changes in vect_get_loop_niters. AT the moment, it computes niter using
number_of_executions_latch, in this way the as
On 07/20/16 20:08, Richard Biener wrote:
> On July 20, 2016 6:54:48 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
>> But I think that alloca just should not be recognized by name any
>> more.
>
> It was introduced to mark calls that should not be duplicated by inlining or
> unrolling to avoid increas
On 06/29/2016 05:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Currently as-base classes lack DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVEs which
means RTL expansion doesn't honor the C++ memory model for bitfields
in them thus for the following testcase
struct B {
B() {}
int x;
int a : 6;
int b : 6;
int c
On 07/20/2016 11:16 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
As suggested by Jakub.
2016-07-20 Uros Bizjak
* hwint.h (HOST_WIDE_INT_0): New define.
(HOST_WIDE_INT_0U): Ditto.
* double-int.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_0 instead of (HOST_WIDE_INT) 0.
* dse.c: Use HOST_WIDE_INT_0U instead of (unsigned HO
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:50:03PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> But the built-in alloca is still recognized because the builtin
> does have ECF_MAY_BE_ALLOCA and ECF_MALLOC.
But __builtin_alloca_with_align likely doesn't have ECF_MALLOC set (even
when it should).
Jakub
On 20 July 2016 at 16:35, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 8 July 2016 at 12:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Richard,
>> >> > For the
On 20 July 2016 at 23:07, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 20 July 2016 at 16:35, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 July 2016 at 12:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Pratham
The new canada hotel is looking for over 100 foreign workers.
Contact the Canadian Administrator by e-mail: forapplica...@yahoo.ca, if it
interests you.
Ray
On 07/21/16 00:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:50:03PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> But the built-in alloca is still recognized because the builtin
>> does have ECF_MAY_BE_ALLOCA and ECF_MALLOC.
>
> But __builtin_alloca_with_align likely doesn't have ECF_MALLOC set (even
>
On 07/21/16 00:19, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 07/21/16 00:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:50:03PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> But the built-in alloca is still recognized because the builtin
>>> does have ECF_MAY_BE_ALLOCA and ECF_MALLOC.
>>
>> But __builtin_alloca_with
On 07/06/2016 08:32 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
While it always seemed wrong to me that there's no way to avoid the
default "flags" and "fpsr" clobbers, the regression the fix for
PR/60663 introduced (see PR/63637) makes it even more desirable to have
such a mechanism: This way, at least asm()s with a
On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 16:16 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jason Merrill
> wrote:
> > This needs a template testcase.
>
> Did you get this reply before? It bounced from the mailing list, but
> I thought you would have gotten it directly.
I did; sorry for not resp
On 7/12/16 8:48 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 02:02:43PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
The second time around, get_secondary_mem should reuse the
same stack slot it already allocated, and the elimination
offsets should already be set to accommodate that stack slot,
which means the
This patch defines
operator""zu(unsigned long long __n)
for size_t literals.
for (auto k = 0zul; k < v.size(); ++k)
...
Testing on x86-64-linux is finishing but I'm past these tests.
OK?
Ed
2016-07-21 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Implement C++17 P0330 size_t
OK.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In PR69315, we've recently allowed recursive genericization, unfortunately
> the bc_label handling isn't prepared for that, we ICE if we cp_genericize
> some function (usually newly instantiated method) while inside of some loop
The problem here was that the code that tries to prevent the -Waddress
warning used cp_fully_fold, and later code used maybe_constant_value,
and the latter simplified the operand more so that it exposed the
ADDR_EXPR to the -Waddress warning. Fixed by calling
maybe_constant_value from cp_fully_fol
The fix for 65168 didn't check c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings, which
means getting warnings about comparing the address of a reference to
NULL in places where we aren't actually interested in the value. This
patch corrects that, but this lead to some regressions because
cp_truthvalue_conversion was
Here one operand of the comparison had been reduced to an INTEGER_CST
and the other was still a PTRMEM_CST. We should deal with that
situation by reducing the PTRMEM_CST.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 6.
commit 984c524f8a302059a1f71f84935dcae5f9914c7f
Author: Jason Merrill
Da
Here we were returning OK from cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt even
though we had encountered parse errors, and so parsing the inner
lambda aborted due to seeing an error_mark_node expression-statement
without ever having emitted any errors.
Fixed by clearing OK if there were parse errors.
Tested
On 21/07/16 00:18 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
This patch defines
operator""zu(unsigned long long __n)
for size_t literals.
for (auto k = 0zul; k < v.size(); ++k)
...
Testing on x86-64-linux is finishing but I'm past these tests.
OK?
P0330 isn't in C++17. In Oulu LEWG voted to forwa
> On 07/20/16 20:08, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On July 20, 2016 6:54:48 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes. That is another interesting observation. I think, originally this
> >> flag was introduced by Jan Hubicka, and should mean, "it may be alloca
> >> or a weak alias to all
101 - 146 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
