Hi Jeff,
I wonder if it would make sense at this point to rename one of the two
get_strlen_range functions?
I always found it hard to tell which function is actually meant when they only
differ in the number of parameters.
Regards
Bernd.
Hi,
while working on the Firefox performance
http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2018/12/even-more-fun-with-building-and.html
I noticed that we still disable inter-unit-moves because of Bulldozer
CPUs. Last year I left that in tuning because Zens was new and it did
not seem to hurt much other CPUs in tests
Hi Gerald,
The attached patch mention Loongson 3a1000 3a2000 3a3000 2k1000 support in gcc9.
ok for commit?
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-9/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -r1.30 changes
Hi Gerald,
patch send to here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg01785.html
thanks.
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:50 AM Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> Hi Paul and Matthew,
>
> I believe it would be good to get this and other MIPS changes covered
> in the GCC 9 release notes at https://gcc
Hi Thomas,
There are some duplicate STOPs (6 and 10) in the test
gfortran.dg/optional_absent_4.f90.
Thanks for the patch,
Dominique
Hi Thomas,
Another glitch: the following test (reduced from
gfortran.dg/optional_absent_4.f90)
module z
implicit none
contains
subroutine findloc_4 (input, val, res, mask)
logical, intent(in), optional :: mask(:,:)
integer, intent(in) :: input(:,:)
integer, dimension(:), intent(
On December 31, 2018 11:11:51 AM GMT+01:00, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>Hi,
>while working on the Firefox performance
>http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2018/12/even-more-fun-with-building-and.html
>I noticed that we still disable inter-unit-moves because of Bulldozer
>CPUs. Last year I left that in tuning beca
Previous submission/discussion here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg02151.html
For msp430-elf with the large memory model (-mlarge), __{,U}INTPTR_TYPE__,
__PTRDIFF_TYPE__ and __SIZE_TYPE__ are __int20.
If a test using these macros is compiled with -pedantic-errors, and -std=* or
-an
On 12/28/18 12:19 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote:
> Hi Jan
>
> On 21/12/18 7:20 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hi,
>> this patch fixes polymorphic call analysis in thunks. Unlike normal
>> methods, thunks take THIS pointer offsetted by a known constant. This
>> needs t be compensated for when calculating ad
Previous submission: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01885.html
The attached patch fixes various tests for msp430-elf with -mlarge.
Succesfully regtested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and msp430-elf/-mlarge.
Ok for trunk?
>From 4cfb2ecd0e0580f69790fadd68b77e8a82992ef4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 200
This new warning was missing tf_warning checks so we may've wound up
re-entering the reporting routines. Fixed thus.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2018-12-31 Marek Polacek
PR c++/88612 - ICE with -Waddress-of-packed-member.
* call.c (convert_for_arg_pa
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 8:06 PM augustine.sterl...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 1:06 AM Max Filippov wrote:
> > Xtensa architecture is not affected by speculation.
> >
> > gcc/
> > 2018-12-30 Max Filippov
> >
> > * config/xtensa/xtensa.c (TARGET_HAVE_SPECULATION_SAFE_VALU
Hi Richard,
On Thursday, 20 December 2018, Richard Earnshaw (lists) <
richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 14/12/2018 23:28, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Commit r242693 forced fp to be saved/restored when needed due to an
>> instance of GCC using fp as a scratch register to save sp while
Forgot the reference:
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg01308.html
On Monday, 31 December 2018, Thomas Preudhomme
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Thursday, 20 December 2018, Richard Earnshaw (lists) <
richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 14/12/2018 23:28, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
>
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 19:19, John David Anglin wrote:
>
> The attached patch enables building pa-c.d on all hppa targets. Tested
> on hppa64-linux-gnu,
> hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 and hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-12/msg03264.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-t
On 12/31/18 1:29 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
>
> I wonder if it would make sense at this point to rename one of the two
> get_strlen_range functions?
>
> I always found it hard to tell which function is actually meant when they only
> differ in the number of parameters.
Yes, but I don
On Dec 29, 2018, at 5:13 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>
> New patch for taking into account the comments in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg01003.html
>
> 2018-12-29 Dominique d'Humieres
>
>PR tree-optimization/68356
>PR target/81210
>PR target/8169
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> Taken individually, all these changes probably qualify as obvious, but given
> how extensive they are and how many files are touched, I thought it would be
> good to get a sanity check on methodology before checking in the whole pile.
> E.g. are there
Hello,
In working on updating the copyright year notices for the GDB files,
I noticed something very minor regarding the patch which added the
file below (the same file was copied in gdb's testsuite); it looks
like the year range for one of the files is truncated:
| diff --git
a/libstdc++-v3
19 matches
Mail list logo