On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:28:14PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/28/2016 09:24 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >I'd like to ping the
> >
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01436.html
> >
> >patch, containing various fixes for gimple-ssa-sprintf.c.
> >If the 0 < var to var > 0 changes
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:28:14PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/28/2016 09:24 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >I'd like to ping the
> >
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01436.html
> >
> >patch, containing various fixes for gimple-ssa-sprintf.c.
> >If the 0 < var to var > 0 changes
On 09/27/2016 10:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/27/2016 01:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached one line patch increases a local buffer size to
avoid an apparently justified (though in reality likely a false
positive) -Wformat-length warning in varasm.c. The warning has
been reported to break
> From: Alexandre Oliva
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:03:02 -0300
>
> Does that work for everyone involved?
Except that no one will reimburse me for the time I wasted talking to
several people, with eventually null result...
Hi,
I too personally always prefer to write the code as the variable
at the left side and the constant at the right side of the
comparison, because that is how I would also say it naturally
in an English or German sentence.
Like for instance "my son is more than 7 years old".
I think nobody woul
On 9/28/16, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Alexandre Oliva
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:03:02 -0300
>>
>> Does that work for everyone involved?
>
> Except that no one will reimburse me for the time I wasted talking to
> several people, with eventually null result...
On 09/28/2016 09:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
And here are the 0 < var to var > 0 changes. Thoughts on those?
I kind of meant it the other way round, so yeah, please install.
Bernd
2016-09-28 Uros Bizjak
PR target/77756
* config/i386/cpuid.h (__get_cpuid): Handle CPUID level >= 7.
testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-09-28 Uros Bizjak
PR target/77756
* gcc.target/i386/pr77756.c: New test.
Patch was bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu {,-m32}
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:17:55PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/28/2016 09:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >And here are the 0 < var to var > 0 changes. Thoughts on those?
>
> I kind of meant it the other way round, so yeah, please install.
Oops, sorry, shall I revert what I've committed th
On 09/28/2016 11:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:17:55PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 09/28/2016 09:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
And here are the 0 < var to var > 0 changes. Thoughts on those?
I kind of meant it the other way round, so yeah, please install.
Oops, so
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:46:59PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/28/2016 11:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:17:55PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >>On 09/28/2016 09:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>>And here are the 0 < var to var > 0 changes. Thoughts on those?
> >>
Committed as svn r240601 and patch 2/2 as r240602.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
> "Jakub" == Jakub Jelinek writes:
>> default:
>> {
>> complaint (&symfile_complaints,
>> _("Storage class %d not recognized during scan"),
>> sclass);
>> }
>> /* FALLTHROUGH */
>>
>> /* C_FCN is .bf and .ef symbols. I think it is sufficient
>> to handle only the C_FUN and C_EXT. */
>> cas
This patch copies runtime.go and runtime1.go from the Go 1.7 runtime
library to libgo, replacing some miscellaneous functions currently
written in C. Some transitional support routines are added to
stubs.go. A few other minor files come along for the ride.
Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86
> From: Ozkan Sezer
> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:09:19 +0300
> Cc: Alexandre Oliva , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>
> On 9/28/16, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> From: Alexandre Oliva
> >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> >> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:03:02 -0300
> >>
> >> Does that work for everyone involved?
On 2016.09.28 at 13:33 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I am testing the following patch to avoid useless VRP range allocations
> when we just ask for varying on stmts we don't know how to handle.
> I think it should fix the PR where we end up assigning to the
> static const vr_const_varying retur
Hi all,
I don't know if this is the right time to submit such patches.
But this patch attempts to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31566
I have successfully bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
testcases:
file:
-Wall
test.c:
void foo()
{
int a,b;
a = b + 1;
}
@t
101 - 117 of 117 matches
Mail list logo