Hello world,
Steve had analyzed the bug and provided a patch in the PR;
I modified the patch stylistically and committed it as
obvious after regression-testing (r253123).
Thanks Steve!
Since this is a regression, I will backport soon.
Regards
Thomas
2017-09-24 Thomas Koenig
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 11:16 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Since the upper 32 bits of stack register are always zero for x32, we
> can encode %esp as %rsp to avoid 0x67 prefix in address if there is no
> index or base register.
>
> Tested on x86-64. OK for trunk?
>
> H.J.
>
> gcc/
>
> PR tar
On 9/24/17, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 11:16 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Since the upper 32 bits of stack register are always zero for x32, we
>> can encode %esp as %rsp to avoid 0x67 prefix in address if there is no
>> index or base register.
>>
>> Tested on x86-64. OK for trunk?
>>
Patch committed after approval by Thomas Koenig on IRC
Dominique
Hi,
I have committed the test cases below for the PR, which
have been fixed by an unknown commit, to make sure that
no regression occurs.
Since the main part of the PR is fixed, but there is one
more unrelated test case, I will close this one and open
a new one (following Dominique's suggestion
Rebased FX’s patch.
Tested on x86_64-apple-darwin16.Is it OK with the proper log entries added?
TIA
Dominique
diff -up ../_clean/gcc/fortran/parse.c gcc/fortran/parse.c
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/parse.c 2017-01-22 20:50:56.0 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/parse.c 2017-01-24 10:01:32.00
Hello world,
this seems to be a productive day for gfortran :-)
Here is another commit of a test case for a bug that
was fixed some time ago. This is r253126.
Regards
Thomas
2017-09-24 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/66328
* gfortran.dg/data_derived_1.f90: New test.
! {
On Sep 22, 2017, at 2:55 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> On 18 Sep 2017, at 22:08, Simon Wright wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2017, at 21:09, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>>
>
If I propose this alternative patch, should it be a new post, or should I
continue this thread?
>>>
>>> thanks for the patch
r253041 enhanced type checking for alias and ifunc attributes to
detect declarations of incompatible aliases, or ifunc resolvers
that return pointers to functions of an incompatible type. More
extensive testing exposed a bug in the implementation of the ifunc
attribute handling in C++ where the c
On 09/23/2017 05:33 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> here is an update and a ping for my patch at
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01104.html
>
> This patch warns unconditionally for
>
> REAL A(3)
> DO I=1,4
> A(I) = 42.
> END DO
>
> while only warning co
On 09/19/2017 07:45 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote:
Here is an updated patch (version #2). Mainly attribute and option names were
changed.
gcc/doc/
* extend.texi: Add 'nocf_check' documentation.
* gimple.texi: Add second parameter to gimple_build_call_from_tree.
* invoke.
On 09/20/2017 08:13 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V
wrote:
Uros, could you please review this patch as it's a part of x86 specific changes
you have reviewed already.
Please proofread and spell-check the text. There are grammatical errors, e.g.:
[sn
This patch removes an unnecessary fold_convert to boolean_type_node at
the end of gfc_likely and gfc_unlikely. It makes no difference to the
generated code, but makes tree dumps a little bit cleaner.
2017-09-25 Janne Blomqvist
* trans.c (gfc_unlikely): Remove unnecessary fold_convert.
13 matches
Mail list logo
