On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:59:27AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> [*] The change in the patch is obvious enough to me. All it
> does is accept more of the things that are accepted by GCC 8
> (enums, bools, wchar_t, etc.) and that inadvertently started
> to be rejected as a result of my prior change.
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I recently brought up the question of the write w/o approval
> policy on the gcc list:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-11/msg00165.html
>
> looking for clarification. Except for Jeff's comment (which
> I'm afraid didn't really clarify things), di
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:26:00AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/10/18 8:48 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > A template-argument for a non-type template-parameter shall be a converted
> > constant expression. But an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion applied to a
> > volatile
> > glvalue is not allowe
OK.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:35 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:26:00AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 12/10/18 8:48 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > A template-argument for a non-type template-parameter shall be a converted
> > > constant expression. But an lvalue-to-rv
On 12/8/18 4:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 01:15:46AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20180920/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-virtual2.C:33:26:
error: non-constant condition for static assertion
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20180920/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/co
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 08:58:34PM +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On 13 September 2018 at 20:41, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> Okay. Do you think we should have an sfk_kind for non-canonical
> >> copy/move operations? That would presumably make it a tad more
> >> straightforward to go from
> >> fn
On 12/11/18 10:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 09:56:46PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> commit d90b13427e4940adabc4320c68ca88513dee2eef
>> Author: Jeff Law
>> Date: Mon Dec 10 21:46:41 2018 -0700
>>
>> PR tree-optimization/80520
>> * gimple-ssa-split-pat
On 12/11/18 11:15 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:59:27AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
[*] The change in the patch is obvious enough to me. All it
does is accept more of the things that are accepted by GCC 8
(enums, bools, wchar_t, etc.) and that inadvertently started
to be re
On 12/11/18 11:15 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
I recently brought up the question of the write w/o approval
policy on the gcc list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-11/msg00165.html
looking for clarification. Except for Jeff's comment (which
I'm afraid d
Ping re this patch:
"[PATCH 2/2] v2: C++: improvements to binary operator diagnostics (PR
c++/87504)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg00236.html
(...which is dependent on:
"[PATCH 1/2] v3: C++: more location wrapper nodes (PR c++/43064, PR
c++/43486)"
https://gcc.gnu.or
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 12/11/18 11:15 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> >> I recently brought up the question of the write w/o approval
> >> policy on the gcc list:
> >>
> >>https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-11/msg00165.h
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:39:25PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As mentioned in the PR, while we allow VLAs in some contexts in C++ as
> an extension, they aren't standard and the standard requires in those spots
> constant expressions, thus __builtin_is_constant_evaluated () needs to be
On 12/11/18 12:17 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 04:30:11PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Some of my testing exposed a minor problem in GCC 9's validation
of the type of function parameters referred to by attribute
positional arguments. Whereas GCC 8 accepts all C integer types,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Attached is an updated version of the patch that restores
> the original behavior for the positional argument validation
> (i.e., prior to r266195) for integral types except bool as
> discussed.
I thought Jason wanted to also warn for
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:52 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> On 10.12.18 16:54, Cherry Zhang wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:41 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> >
> >> On 06.12.18 00:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >>> This libgo patch by Cherry Zhang adds support for precise stack
> >>> scanning to th
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 3:51 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:52 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> >
> > On 10.12.18 16:54, Cherry Zhang wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:41 AM Matthias Klose
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 06.12.18 00:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > >>> This libgo
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:48:17AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/10/18 2:52 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > + if (processing_template_decl && value_dependent_expression_p (expr))
>
> You don't need to check processing_template_decl before
> value_dependent_expression_p.
Ok.
> I would lean t
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:35:39PM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > tree
> > -maybe_constant_value (tree t, tree decl)
> > +maybe_constant_value (tree t, tree decl, bool pretend_const_required)
> > {
> >tree r;
> >
>
> Could you please describe the new param in the comment?
>
> Perhaps use
PR c++/88375 reports that errors relating to invalid conversions in
initializations are reported at unhelpfully vague locations, as in
e.g.:
enum struct a : int {
one, two
};
struct foo {
int e1, e2;
a e3;
} arr[] = {
{ 1, 2, a::one },
{ 3, a::two },
{ 4, 5, a::two }
};
for which g++
On 12/11/18 1:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch that restores
the original behavior for the positional argument validation
(i.e., prior to r266195) for integral types except bool as
discussed.
I
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:46:37PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 12/11/18 1:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > Attached is an updated version of the patch that restores
> > > the original behavior for the positional argument validat
On 12/11/18 4:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:35:39PM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
tree
-maybe_constant_value (tree t, tree decl)
+maybe_constant_value (tree t, tree decl, bool pretend_const_required)
{
tree r;
Could you please describe the new param in the com
On Fri, 2018-12-07 at 17:34 +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> I'm not an expert on this stuff, but it looks like:
>
> struct cgraph_node *node = cgraph_node::get (fndecl);
> return node && node->simdclone;
>
> might work. But in some ways it would be cleaner to add the
> aarch64_vector_pc
This is the failure of the libada build when the compiler is configured with
--disable-shared in a multilib setup, a regression present on the mainline.
To be honest, I don't quite grasp why this doesn't also fail the same way in
default mode. While I was at it, I have done something I had wante
On 12/11/18 3:52 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:46:37PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 12/11/18 1:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch that restores
the original behavior for th
This is the modified version of the second of my Aarch64 SIMD ABI patches.
While implementing this functionality I found I wanted
targetm.simd_clone.adjust to be called when creating SIMD clone definitions
and also when creating SIMD clone declarations. The current
implementation (used only by x86
I've committed the attached patch. It does two things.
(1) It adds checking for a UNIT number when a file positioning
statement contains ERR=. (2) It passes a locus so that a
sensible error message is printed,
2018-12-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88249
* gfortran.h: Update p
On 12/11/18 6:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 12/11/18 3:52 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:46:37PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 12/11/18 1:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch
On 11/5/18 12:39 PM, Tom Honermann wrote:
This patch adds documentation for new -fchar8_t and -fno-char8_t options.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-11-04 Tom Honermann
* doc/invoke.texi (-fchar8_t): Document new option.
My comments are all about nitpicky formatting things.
diff --git a/gcc/do
On 11.12.18 22:01, Cherry Zhang wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 3:51 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:52 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10.12.18 16:54, Cherry Zhang wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:41 AM Matthias Klose
>> wrote:
> On 06.12.18 00:09,
Committed as obvious.
The attached patch set an expression locus to gfc_current_locus
to avoid a NULL pointer reference when emitting an error message.
On beneficial fallout to this patch required a fix up to the
testcase gfortran.dg/pr70870_1.f90.
2018-12-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortra
On 12/11/18 11:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
While working on the libstdc++ patch for P0595R2, I've noticed that while
__builtin_is_constant_evaluated () directly works, when wrapped into
an constexpr inline noexcept function, it in some cases doesn't. The
problem is that the constexpr call c
On 12/5/18 10:14 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 12/4/18 8:49 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
What is the "it" referenced in the user's questions you quoted? The
const/pure attributes? Those are function attributes. The text you
are adding is in the type attribute section, so it seemed like it was
HI Terry,Kyrill
I'm sorry to reply to your email after a week, it's a busy week.
Glad to receive your advice, Follow kyrill's advice ,adjust the reservation
to 12 cycles, the result shows that it will not affect the scheduling
performance.
I have modified the patch according to the su
On 11-12-18 18:59, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:50 AM Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>> Add test-case that forces alloc.c functions to fail, and check whether fail
>> handling is robust.
>>
>> This is the test-case for "[libbacktrace] Fix segfault upon allocation
>> failure". Witho
[ Fixed ENOPATCH ]
On 12-12-18 08:03, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 11-12-18 18:59, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:50 AM Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
>>> Add test-case that forces alloc.c functions to fail, and check whether fail
>>> handling is robust.
>>>
>>> This is the test-case f
On 2018-12-11, 11:14:24, Olivier Hainque wrote:
(A message that remained in my drafts box)
On 3 Dec 2018, at 16:50, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote:
Matching front-end bits to support Acc_Kernels, Acc_Parallel,
Acc_Loop and Acc_Data.
Note that this was all originally contributed by Ghujan Lacam
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 20:58, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 08:58:34PM +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> > On 13 September 2018 at 20:41, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >> Okay. Do you think we should have an sfk_kind for non-canonical
> > >> copy/move operations? That would presumab
Currently, .cfi_endproc and FUNC_END(__trampoline_setup) are placed
inside the #else branch of an "#if defined (__VXWORKS__) ...", so
non-pic vxworks does not get proper CFI nor a .size directive for
__trampoline_setup. I assume there's no magic reason for that (which
would warrant a comment), so m
101 - 139 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
