Hello.
Following patch removes forgotten hunks connected to removal of
__gcov_merge_delta counter.
I'm running make profiledbootstrap, ready to install the patch after it
finishes?
Thanks,
Martin
>From e0123fe1cefe5f5cced239c36ebccd53c38feb25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Tue, 27
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On September 26, 2016 5:46:28 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>>@@ -2310,7 +2313,8 @@ create_intersect_range_checks_index
>>(loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, tree *cond_expr,
>>> gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (DR_STEP (dr_a.dr)) == INTE
Hi Marek,
On Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Marek Polacek wrote:
> All right. I'll commit the patch on Monday.
my thrice a week bootstrap on old (but still "supported")
i?86-unknown-freebsd9 broke as follows:
cc1plus: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-implicit-fallthrough"
gmake[3]: *** [Ma
Hi!
The following testcase ICEs, because we need the outer reference for the
private clause to find out if it is allocated or not and the dimensions,
but while it is provided e.g. for automatic array allocatables or all scalar
allocatables, it isn't provided for dummy array allocatable arguments.
> Seconded. The warning should take into account existing practices instead
> of forcing the user to make completely bogus changes to the code (and Ada
> should have been tested before the patch was approved).
I have a bootstrap failure on x86-64/Linux:
/home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/combine.c: In funct
Hi!
As the testcases show, we actually instrument -fsanitize=return only if
the DECL_SAVED_TREE (fndecl) is a BIND_EXPR with STATEMENT_LIST as its
BIND_EXPR_BODY (plus tests that it actually needs such an instrumentation).
The return-{4,5}.C tests show that it isn't always the case, sometimes we
h
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:55:24AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Seconded. The warning should take into account existing practices instead
> > of forcing the user to make completely bogus changes to the code (and Ada
> > should have been tested before the patch was approved).
>
> I have a boots
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Following patch removes forgotten hunks connected to removal of
> __gcov_merge_delta counter.
> I'm running make profiledbootstrap, ready to install the patch after it
> finishes?
Ok.
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Martin
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:55:24AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> > Seconded. The warning should take into account existing practices instead
>> > of forcing the user to make completely bogus changes to the code (and Ada
>> > should have be
This breaks building with gcc-4.3.
g++ -std=gnu++98 -fno-PIE -c -DUSE_LIBUNWIND_EXCEPTIONS -g -DIN_GCC
-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wcast-qual -Wno-format -Wmissing-format-attribute -Woverloaded-virtual
-pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-vari
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:03:10AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> This breaks building with gcc-4.3.
>
> g++ -std=gnu++98 -fno-PIE -c -DUSE_LIBUNWIND_EXCEPTIONS -g -DIN_GCC
> -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall
> -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wno-format -Wmissing
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:49:00AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > It seems unfortunate that the warning doesn't accept /* ... fall
> > through ... */ as a fallthrough comment.
>
> Seconded. The warning should take into account existing practices instead of
> forcing the user to make completely
Dear All,
The first attempts at fixing this bug were posted to the PR in
February of this year. Since then, real life has intervened and I have
not been able to get back to it until now.
The first patch used the address of the vtable to perform the
switching in SELECT_TYPE. Unfortunately, it fail
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:03:10AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> This breaks building with gcc-4.3.
>>
>> g++ -std=gnu++98 -fno-PIE -c -DUSE_LIBUNWIND_EXCEPTIONS -g -DIN_GCC
>> -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 14:07 +, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> After discussion (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg00718
>> .html)
>> here is the latest version of the strchr patch. This uses a gimple
>> statement for
>> the pointer add
> The intent has been that we catch the most common forms, but still require
> it not to be complete free form. Because, as experience shows, people are
> extremely creative in these comments, and it is not very good idea to
> support everything. For ... fall through ... , what is the purpose of
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:02:03AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > ix86_simd_clone_usable): Remove break after return.
And after scripting this a little bit:
#/bin/awk -f
/^[[:blank:]]+return[[:blank:]]/ { L1=$0;
PP=gensub(/^([[:blank:]]+)return.*$/,"\\1","",L1); next; }
/^[[:blank:]]+br
GCC 4.3 stupidly errors on this with
error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-implicit-fallthrough"
so use -Wno-error instead.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2016-09-27 Marek Polacek
PR bootstrap/77751
* Makefile.in (insn-attrtab.o-warn, insn-dfatab.o-warn,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:50:17AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi Marek,
>
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > All right. I'll commit the patch on Monday.
>
> my thrice a week bootstrap on old (but still "supported")
> i?86-unknown-freebsd9 broke as follows:
>
> cc1plus: error
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:40:19AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> GCC 4.3 stupidly errors on this with
> error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-implicit-fallthrough"
> so use -Wno-error instead.
I'm not sure I like this, then we'll see even during stage2/stage3 lots of
warnings in those file
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:03:10AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> This breaks building with gcc-4.3.
>
> g++ -std=gnu++98 -fno-PIE -c -DUSE_LIBUNWIND_EXCEPTIONS -g -DIN_GCC
> -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall
> -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wno-format -Wmissing
On Sep 27 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:40:19AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> GCC 4.3 stupidly errors on this with
>> error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-implicit-fallthrough"
>> so use -Wno-error instead.
>
> I'm not sure I like this, then we'll see even duri
Hi Richard,
> The following patch ports a refactoring of section/label in it from
> the early LTO debug work to trunk. For early LTO debug we need to
> be able to emit two sets of debug infos into two sets of different
> sections - early LTO into .gnu.debuglto_ prefixed sections and
> regular (ea
> this patch introduced many pch assembly comparison failures on Solaris
> (both sparc and x86, 32 and 64-bit, /bin/as only), like
Something on darwin.
TIA
Dominique
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:02:03AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > ix86_simd_clone_usable): Remove break after return.
>
> And after scripting this a little bit:
> #/bin/awk -f
> /^[[:blank:]]+return[[:blank:]]/ { L1=$0;
> PP=gens
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> GCC 4.3 stupidly errors on this with
> error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-implicit-fallthrough"
> so use -Wno-error instead.
>
> Bootstrapped on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
Ok for trunk now to unbreak peoples bootstrap. We can i
On 26/09/16 22:36 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Fixed with attached patch.
François
On 26/09/2016 13:56, Andreas Schwab wrote:
FAIL: 23_containers/list/debug/invalidation/4.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160926/Build/m68k-linux/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/sa
Hi Marek,
On 27/09/16 10:44, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:03:10AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
This breaks building with gcc-4.3.
g++ -std=gnu++98 -fno-PIE -c -DUSE_LIBUNWIND_EXCEPTIONS -g -DIN_GCC
-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wwrit
In working on some new code I got sufficiently frustrated to implement pretty
printing on internal function discriminators. We now get:
.data_dep.2 = UNIQUE (OACC_FORK, .data_dep.2, -1);
rather than an obscure raw integer for the first argument.
For the internal fns (I know of) that have a
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> > The following patch ports a refactoring of section/label in it from
> > the early LTO debug work to trunk. For early LTO debug we need to
> > be able to emit two sets of debug infos into two sets of different
> > sections - early LTO in
On 2016.09.27 at 10:46 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > The intent has been that we catch the most common forms, but still require
> > it not to be complete free form. Because, as experience shows, people are
> > extremely creative in these comments, and it is not very good idea to
> > support ever
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:24:23PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > GCC 4.3 stupidly errors on this with
> > error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-implicit-fallthrough"
> > so use -Wno-error instead.
> >
> > Bootstrapped on x86_64-li
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:32:42AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> where the code is:
> 2156 /* Fall through - if the lane index isn't a constant then
> 2157 the next case will error. */
> 2158
> 2159 case NEON_ARG_CONSTANT:
>
>
> Is there supposed to be
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:39:41PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2016.09.27 at 10:46 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > The intent has been that we catch the most common forms, but still require
> > > it not to be complete free form. Because, as experience shows, people are
> > > extremely
Hi Richard,
>> this patch introduced many pch assembly comparison failures on Solaris
>> (both sparc and x86, 32 and 64-bit, /bin/as only), like
>>
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/pch/common-1.c -O3 -g assembly comparison
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/pch/common-1.c -O0 -g assembly comparison
>>
>> gcc.log shows this dif
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:47:50PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:39:41PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2016.09.27 at 10:46 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > > The intent has been that we catch the most common forms, but still
> > > > require
> > > > it not to
On 09/26/16 11:22, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
So the I found reason of inconsistencies, running multiple times -fselftest is
enough to
find that memory allocation related functions can be executed different times.
Small example:
thanks for checking.
@@ -598,6 +598,10 @@ facilities to restrict
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:47:50PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:39:41PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2016.09.27 at 10:46 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > > The intent has been that we catch the most common forms, but still
> > > > require
> > > > it not to
In working on some new code I got sufficiently frustrated to implement pretty
printing on internal function discriminators, as I think one of you suggested a
while back. With this patch we get:
.data_dep.2 = UNIQUE (OACC_FORK, .data_dep.2, -1);
rather than an obscure raw integer for the firs
Tobias,
Many thanks for the comments. I will adjust the patch according to
your advice shortly.
- Fritz
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 11:59 Tobias Burnus
wrote:
>
> Fritz Reese wrote:
> > Attached is a patch extending the GNU Fortran front-end to support
> > some additional math intrinsics, enabled wit
The following backports a correctness fix I slipped in during some
refactoring in the GCC 6 dev phase.
Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, meanwhile
applied the testcase to trunk and GCC 6.
Richard.
2016-09-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/77478
> The accepted style is already very permissive, we don't allow just one
> spelling as various lint tools.
Well, it cannot even handle the variations of a single codebase, GCC itself,
so I'm afraid very permissive is not exactly the appropriate wording here.
Anyway, we'll see whether Bugzilla is
On 09/27/2016 12:55 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> "Instrumented applications use a static destructor with priority 99 to invoke
> the __gcov_dump function. Thus __gcov_dump is executed after all
> user defined static destructors, as well as handlers registered with atexit."
>
> ?
Hello.
I like
On 09/27/16 07:07, Martin Liška wrote:
On 09/27/2016 12:55 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
"Instrumented applications use a static destructor with priority 99 to invoke
the __gcov_dump function. Thus __gcov_dump is executed after all
user defined static destructors, as well as handlers registered wi
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The accepted style is already very permissive, we don't allow just one
>> spelling as various lint tools.
>
> Well, it cannot even handle the variations of a single codebase, GCC itself,
> so I'm afraid very permissive is not exactly the app
Hi,
This patch requires int32plus for
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c, as it reports a bunch of
failures for a 16 bit int target like the avr. The "%u" format
specifier tests, for example, use int literals big enough to only fit
in a long int, and this causes unexpected warnings
On 27/09/16 11:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:32:42AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
where the code is:
2156 /* Fall through - if the lane index isn't a constant then
2157 the next case will error. */
2158
2159 case NEON_ARG_CONSTAN
The following fixes bogus redundant store removal by FRE/PRE and bogus
"store match" detections by VN. This amends the similar PR69776 fix.
Bootstraped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
2016-09-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/77745
* tree-ssa-pre.c (el
ping^1, CC'ing objective C maintainers.
Thanks,
Martin
On 08/10/2016 11:11 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Following patch clarifies usage of ctor and dtor attributes for Objective C.
> Patch survives (on x86_64-linux-gnu):
>
> make -k check-objc RUNTESTFLAGS="execute.exp"
>
> Ready for trun
On 22/09/16 12:55, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
[...]
N.B. if you're going to require libatomic for RTEMS then you should
check if the preprocessor conditions in libsupc++/exception_ptr.h
and libsupc++/eh_ptr.cc are appropriate. If exception_ptr is not
currently enabled for RTEMS then you could enable
Following patch prevents emission of gcno file (notes file) for statements
that do not point to original source file, like:
$ echo "int main(){}" > x.c
In this case the location points to a builtin.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Ma
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:56:29PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:47:50PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:39:41PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > On 2016.09.27 at 10:46 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > > > The intent has been that we cat
On 09/27/16 07:26, Martin Liška wrote:
Following patch prevents emission of gcno file (notes file) for statements
that do not point to original source file, like:
$ echo "int main(){}" > x.c
In this case the location points to a builtin.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives reg
On 2016.09.27 at 12:56 +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:47:50PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:39:41PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > On 2016.09.27 at 10:46 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > > > The intent has been that we catch the most
On 09/27/2016 01:09 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The accepted style is already very permissive, we don't allow just one
spelling as various lint tools.
Well, it cannot even handle the variations of a single codebase, GCC itself,
so I'm afraid
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:31:15PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I think it is important to think in terms of what regexps we still want to
> match, even when the matching is actually implemented in C, not using
> regexps. And yes, you list one reason why arbitrary text with fall and
> through som
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:47:07PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/27/2016 01:09 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Eric Botcazou
> > wrote:
> > > > The accepted style is already very permissive, we don't allow just one
> > > > spelling as various lint tools.
> > >
On 09/26/2016 09:08 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
+@gccoptlist{-faggressive-loop-optimizations @gol
+-falign-functions[=@var{n}[,@var{m},[@var{n}[,@var{m} @gol
+-falign-jumps[=@var{n}[,@var{m}]] @gol
+-falign-labels[=@var{n}[,@var{m}]] -falign-loops[=@var{n}[,@var{m}]] @gol
@itemx -falign-fun
On 09/27/2016 01:51 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
But the C/C++ keywords are all English, too; lint tools only accept English,
and so it wouldn't seem unreasonable to only accept English keywords in the
comments. And in any case, I don't see how a compiler can be expected to
be able to parse non-Engl
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 06:51:31AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:31:15PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I think it is important to think in terms of what regexps we still want to
> > match, even when the matching is actually implemented in C, not using
> > regexps.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:55:22PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/27/2016 01:51 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > But the C/C++ keywords are all English, too; lint tools only accept English,
> > and so it wouldn't seem unreasonable to only accept English keywords in the
> > comments. And in any ca
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:46:08PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> I'm also wondering about the situation where not a single break is used
> in all of the cases. It would be best not to warn here.
This is tricky and I'm afraid all I can offer here is to use the diagnostics
pragma to suppress t
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:12:30PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 27/09/16 11:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:32:42AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> > > where the code is:
> > > 2156 /* Fall through - if the lane index isn't a constant
> > > then
> > > 2
* Marek Polacek:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:46:08PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>> I'm also wondering about the situation where not a single break is used
>> in all of the cases. It would be best not to warn here.
>
> This is tricky and I'm afraid all I can offer here is to use the diagnos
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:27:12PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Marek Polacek:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:46:08PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >> I'm also wondering about the situation where not a single break is used
> >> in all of the cases. It would be best not to warn here.
>
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:27:12PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Marek Polacek:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:46:08PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >> I'm also wondering about the situation where not a single break is used
> >> in all of the cases. It would be best not to warn here.
>
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> This patch makes -Wint-in-bool-context warn on suspicious integer left
> shifts, when the integer is signed, which is most likely some kind of
> programming error, for instance using "<<" instead of "<".
>
> The warning is motivated by the f
Dear All,
After submitting the patch, I did something that I should have done a
long time ago: some timing tests :-)
I used actual_array_offset_1.f90, which is based on Arjen Markus's
implementation of quicksort using unlimited polymorphic entities as
carriers of the objects to be sorted.
With 1
On 09/27/2016 01:32 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 09/27/16 07:26, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Following patch prevents emission of gcno file (notes file) for statements
>> that do not point to original source file, like:
>>
>> $ echo "int main(){}" > x.c
>>
>> In this case the location points to a buil
On 09/27/2016 02:45 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 09/27/2016 01:32 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> On 09/27/16 07:26, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Following patch prevents emission of gcno file (notes file) for statements
>>> that do not point to original source file, like:
>>>
>>> $ echo "int main(){}" > x
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 19:53, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
> On 08/10/2016 03:11 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Following patch clarifies usage of ctor and dtor attributes for Objective C.
>> Patch survives (on x86_64-linux-gnu):
>>
>> make -k check-objc RUNTESTFLAGS="execute.exp"
>>
>> Read
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:58:54PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Any comment with text
> >
> > ^[^_[:alnum:]]*(else )?fall(s | |-)?thr(ough|u)[^_[:alnum:]]*$
> >
> > perhaps? Case-insensitive. Or allow any amount of space, or even any
> > interpunction. Just don't allow any alphanumerics exc
* Jason Merrill:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>> This patch makes -Wint-in-bool-context warn on suspicious integer left
>> shifts, when the integer is signed, which is most likely some kind of
>> programming error, for instance using "<<" instead of "<".
>>
>> The wa
On Sun, 2016-09-25 at 16:06 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
>
> This fixes a fallout that actually goes back to 5.0 but went
> unnoticed. The costs for movt and movrt type of insns were not
> correctly reported and ifcvt thus made some bad choices for SH. A
> new cset_zero pattern variant is also requir
On 09/27/16 08:46, Martin Liška wrote:
Second version of the patch adds validation to gcov.exp, where $result is scanned for
"File ''".
Luckily current test-case hit that verification:
FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/gcov-6.c gcov failed: .gcov should not be created
FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/gcov-7.c gcov fai
Using -Wno-error where only -Wno-implicit-fallthrough was meant was deemed
to coarse, so this patch attempts to add a configure check for this warnign
and only use -Wno-implicit-fallthrough when appropriate.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-linux and ppc64-linux, ok for trunk?
2016-09-27 Marek Polacek
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 09/27/16 08:46, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>>> Second version of the patch adds validation to gcov.exp, where $result is
>>> scanned for "File ''".
>>> Luckily current test-case hit that verification:
>>>
>>> FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/gcov-6.c gcov
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Using -Wno-error where only -Wno-implicit-fallthrough was meant was deemed
> to coarse, so this patch attempts to add a configure check for this warnign
> and only use -Wno-implicit-fallthrough when appropriate.
>
> Bootstrapped on x86_64-lin
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:05:24PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Using -Wno-error where only -Wno-implicit-fallthrough was meant was deemed
> to coarse, so this patch attempts to add a configure check for this warnign
> and only use -Wno-implicit-fallthrough when appropriate.
>
> Bootstrapped on x
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:09:36PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Using -Wno-error where only -Wno-implicit-fallthrough was meant was deemed
> > to coarse, so this patch attempts to add a configure check for this warnign
> > and only use -W
> Also the '=' in the split line goes to the next line according to
> coding conventions.
fixed, I had only looked at an instance one function above which had it
wrong as well. Also changed comment grammar slightly.
Regards
Robin
--
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-09-27 Robin Dapp
* tree-vec
Recently added support for ARMv8.2-A
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01240.html) included a
number of changes to improve data movement, particularly for HI and HF
mode values. These included the use of the Thumb-2 instruction MOVW and
of the new VMOV.F16 instruction. There are probl
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Robin Dapp wrote:
> > Also the '=' in the split line goes to the next line according to
> > coding conventions.
>
> fixed, I had only looked at an instance one function above which had it
> wrong as well. Also changed comment grammar slightly.
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
>
> Reg
On 09/27/2016 03:05 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> On 09/27/16 08:46, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
Second version of the patch adds validation to gcov.exp, where $result is
scanned for "File ''".
Luckily current test-case hit that ver
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:09:36PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > Using -Wno-error where only -Wno-implicit-fallthrough was meant was deemed
>> > to coarse, so this patch attempts t
Hi all,
This patch adjusts the fallthrough comments in the arm backend to not trigger
the -Wimplicit-fallthrough warning
which is currently causing arm bootstrap to fail.
Bootstrapped and tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf.
Committing to trunk in the interest of fixing bootstrap.
Thanks,
Kyri
On 09/27/2016 12:58 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
In working on some new code I got sufficiently frustrated to implement
pretty printing on internal function discriminators, as I think one of
you suggested a while back. With this patch we get:
.data_dep.2 = UNIQUE (OACC_FORK, .data_dep.2, -1);
ra
Hi,
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
> > This patch makes -Wint-in-bool-context warn on suspicious integer left
> > shifts, when the integer is signed, which is most likely some kind of
> > programming error, for instance using
Someone would hit this sooner or later.
Applying to trunk.
2016-09-27 Marek Polacek
* config/ia64/ia64.c (ia64_print_operand): Adjust fall through
comment.
diff --git gcc/config/ia64/ia64.c gcc/config/ia64/ia64.c
index 573872e..d32823a 100644
--- gcc/config/ia64/ia64.c
+++ gc
This is moving break_out_includes (aka -feliminate-dwarf2-dups handling)
to early finish. It requires some massaging with the way we pick
up its results which previously "conveniently" ended up in the
limbo list but after moving to early will be scrapped off by
late finish doing a limbo list flus
On 09/27/2016 02:01 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:55:22PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 09/27/2016 01:51 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
But the C/C++ keywords are all English, too; lint tools only accept English,
and so it wouldn't seem unreasonable to only accept English keywo
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:48:07PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/27/2016 02:01 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:55:22PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >>On 09/27/2016 01:51 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >>>But the C/C++ keywords are all English, too; lint tools only accept
Hi Matthew,
On 27/09/16 14:21, Matthew Wahab wrote:
Recently added support for ARMv8.2-A
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01240.html) included a
number of changes to improve data movement, particularly for HI and HF
mode values. These included the use of the Thumb-2 instruction MOV
Hi,
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Just compare that to the number of real bugs the warning found in gcc
> codebase. It is really worth it for -Wextra.
All those bugs would also have been found as well when it had simply
accepted
/fall.*thr/i
anywhere in the preceding comment o
More fall through comments.
Applying to trunk.
2016-09-27 Marek Polacek
* config/c6x/c6x.h: Adjust fall through comment.
* config/sh/sh.c (final_prescan_insn): Likewise.
* config/visium/visium.c (visium_expand_int_cstore): Likewise.
(visium_expand_fp_cstore): L
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:53:25PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/27/2016 03:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:48:07PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >>On 09/27/2016 02:01 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:55:22PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
AIX Assembler uses storage mapping classes to map symbols and CSECTs
to XCOFF file sections. References to symbols with a section to be
determined in the future are suppose to use [UA] storage mapping class
for "unclassified".
rs6000.c:rs6000_output_symbol() adds the [DS] decoration for function
s
On 09/27/16 14:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jason Merrill:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Bernd Edlinger
>> wrote:
>>> This patch makes -Wint-in-bool-context warn on suspicious integer left
>>> shifts, when the integer is signed, which is most likely some kind of
>>> programming error, for
On 09/27/2016 03:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:48:07PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 09/27/2016 02:01 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:55:22PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 09/27/2016 01:51 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
But the C/C++ keywords are all E
On 09/07/2016 11:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
That said, with the idea of early debug in place and thus giving
more responsibility to the frontends I wonder in what order the Ada
FE calls debug_hooks.early_global_decl ()? Maybe it's the middle-end
and it should arrange for a more natural order on
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
