On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> [*] perhaps `&"~"[!twiddle]' is too cute a trick?
It's very localized, so I think it's appropriately cute.
Jason
The C++ front end hasn't generated WITH_CLEANUP_EXPR in a very long
time (20+ years?), so there's no need to handle it.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 8ce76bba3bf7866a2338125b4c55b0a1e3ce9221
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Thu Jun 29 15:56:20 2017 -0400
* conste
On 06/29/2017 12:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/29/2017 11:57 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/23/2017 09:58 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 05/18/2017 12:55 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch tries to fix PR80806 by warning when a variable is
set using memset (and friends) but not used.
OK.
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while looking into some bugs (eg, c++/71464) I noticed a few more of those
> consecutive errors, which I propose to adjust per the below patchlet. The
> second case in add_method is a bit tricky because in principle we'd really
OK.
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:13 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-15 at 16:35 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:05 PM, David Malcolm
>> wrote:
>> > OK for trunk now, or should this wait until stage 1?
>>
>> Stage 1.
>>
>> > + cp_token *close_paren = cp_pars
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2017, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
>> In the testcase we SEGV due to infinite recursion because the
>> noexcept-specifier of f depends on itself. Fixed by keeping track of
>> which functions we're currently trying to instantiate noexc
On 05/23/2017 07:54 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to ping this patch for review:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00775.html
So was there any kind of resolution on the case in libcomp where we had
an assignment between two essentially equivalent, but distinct en
> After this commit (r249800), GCC builds fail for arm and aarch64:
>
> /gccsrc/gcc/except.c: In function ???void
> sjlj_emit_function_enter(rtx_code_label*)???:
> /gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/except.c:1183: error: conversion from ???int??? to
> non-scalar type ???profile_probability??? requested
> make[2]
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> After this commit (r249800), GCC builds fail for arm and aarch64:
>>
>> /gccsrc/gcc/except.c: In function ???void
>> sjlj_emit_function_enter(rtx_code_label*)???:
>> /gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/except.c:1183: error: conversion from ???int??? to
>> no
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> After this commit (r249800), GCC builds fail for arm and aarch64:
> >>
> >> /gccsrc/gcc/except.c: In function ???void
> >> sjlj_emit_function_enter(rtx_code_label*)???:
> >> /gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/except.c:1183: error: conversion from ???int
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >> After this commit (r249800), GCC builds fail for arm and aarch64:
>> >>
>> >> /gccsrc/gcc/except.c: In function ???void
>> >> sjlj_emit_function_enter(rtx_code_label*)???:
>> >> /gcc
>
> The warning in the original code could have been suppressed (by
> casting the pointer to char*), but it was valid so I opted not
> to. I'd expect it to be possible to work around the bug but
> I don't have easy access to GCC 4.2 to reproduce it or verify
> the fix.
>
> FWIW, after looking at
Hi,
this patch makes cross compiler for all three targets to build again.
Comitted as obvious.
* arm/arm-builtins.c: Include profile-count.h
* except.c (sjlj_emit_function_enter): Use
profile_probability::unlikely.
Index: config/arm/arm-builtins.c
==
On 05/24/2017 08:54 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jeff Law writes:
>> On 11/16/2016 09:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Later patches will make machmode.h rely on wide-int.h and the
>>> new poly-int.h, so it needs to appear later in the coretypes.h
>>> include list.
>>>
>>> Previously machmode
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/23/2017 07:54 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I would like to ping this patch for review:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00775.html
> So was there any kind of resolution on the case in libcomp where we had
> an assignment b
On 06/29/2017 09:51 AM, coypu wrote:
> I was thinking of holding a party for the upcoming one year anniversary
> of pinging this patch, that was committed to NetBSD's copy of GCC about
> a decade ago. without it, I can't compile simple programs.
When it was committed to NetBSD isn't at all relevant
On 06/26/2017 09:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 09:22:31AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> From d255827a64012fb81937d6baa8534eabecf9b735 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sylvestre Ledru
> Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:37:37 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] 2017-05-14 Sylve
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:23:37PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/29/2017 09:51 AM, coypu wrote:
> > I was thinking of holding a party for the upcoming one year anniversary
> > of pinging this patch, that was committed to NetBSD's copy of GCC about
> > a decade ago. without it, I can't compile simp
On 06/29/2017 04:34 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
The warning in the original code could have been suppressed (by
casting the pointer to char*), but it was valid so I opted not
to. I'd expect it to be possible to work around the bug but
I don't have easy access to GCC 4.2 to reproduce it or verify
the
On 6/29/17 8:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2017, Peter Bergner wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/17 4:03 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> This refactors things a bit to make CFG cleanup handle switches with
>>> just a default label. If we make sure to cleanup the CFG after
>>> group_case_label
On 29/06/17 18:05, David Miller wrote:
From: Daniel Cederman
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:15:43 +0200
I'm not thrilled with this, it's undocumented, the other workaround
don't have
it and I don't think that we really need it.
The B2BST errata workaround requires more changes to assembler
routin
Hi,
Please consider this as a personal reminder to review the patch
at following link and let me know your comments on the same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg01334.html
Thanks,
Naveen
Hello!
> This patch to the gotools Makefile adds tests to `make check`. We now
> test the runtime package using the newly built go tool, and test that
> cgo works by running the misc/cgo/test and misc/cgo/testcarchive
> tests. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> Committed
This fixes the bootstrap failure triggered by the recent changes wrt
branch probabilities aka emit_cmp_and_jump_insns does not accept
integers as branch probability anymore.
Regressiontested on s390x.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2017-06-30 Andreas Krebbel
* config/s390/s390.c (s390_expand_setmem)
I noticed a couple of typos and whitespace issues in profile-count.h.
I've committed the following patch to fix them.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2017-06-30 Andreas Krebbel
* profile-count.h (enum profile_quality): Fix typos and whitespace
issues.
---
gcc/profile-count.h | 46
101 - 125 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
