On 6/24/19 4:52 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 23/06/19 19:45, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/23/19 7:53 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... hi again ;)
The other day I was having a look at using declarations for this
issue and noticed that only a few lines below the de-virtualization
check we have to
On 6/23/19 5:51 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/22/19 9:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/21/19 8:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The solution we implemented in GCC 9 to get the mangling of
non-type template arguments of class types containing array
members consistent regardless of the form of their
ini
Hi!
As the testcase shows, offset{1,2} can be NULL and operand_equal_p doesn't
like NULL arguments. If both are NULL, we should return true, if just one,
we should return false.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to trunk.
2019-06-27 Jakub Jelinek
PR tr
Hi!
The likely/unlikely C++11 attributes on case labels result in GIMPLE_PREDICT
statements inserted after the label; we should just ignore such statements,
they aren't something executable in between the labels.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to trunk,
queued fo
On 6/27/19 12:40 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On June 27, 2019 7:04:32 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:58:25AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> The LHS is unsigned short so handle_char_store would not be called
>>> because of the check in the caller. You would need s
On 6/27/19 1:06 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 19:55, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++
wrote:
I don't think this will work in a constant expression:
?? /// Assign @p __new_val to @p __obj and return its previous value.
?? template
+?? _GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR
?? inline
On 27/06/19 19:07 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 6/27/19 1:06 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 19:55, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++
wrote:
I don't think this will work in a constant expression:
?? /// Assign @p __new_val to @p __obj and return its previous value.
?? tem
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 12:50 PM Jim Wilson wrote:
> This looks OK to me. It is worth pointing out that ARM already ships
> compilers built this way, but they didn't bother adding a configure
> option. They just override Makefile variables in their build scripts.
> I think this is much cleaner a
To keep things organized, I'm going to start submitting the patches for for a
possible future PowerPC machine's prefixed addressing (including pc-relative
suport) as threads under this message.
There are two patches that I've already submitted that are needed for the rest
of the patches:
Patch #1
This patch updates the predicates for prefixed addressing.
This patch deletes a predicate that I had originally added, but the code no
longer uses.
This patch changes how local symbols for pc-relative addressing are marked.
Previously, we had used a machine dependent bit in the SYMBOL_REF node.
On 6/27/19 10:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 09:15:41AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Actually it was trivial to create with store merging.
>>
>> char x[20];
>> foo()
>> {
>> x[0] = 0x41;
>> x[1] = 0x42;
>> }
>>
>> MEM [(char *)&x] = 16961;
>>
>> So clearly we can get this
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 5:38 PM Rainer Orth
wrote:
>
> Hi Hongtao,
>
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 5:02 PM Rainer Orth
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Hongtao,
> >>
> >> >> as usual, the new effective-target keyword needs documenting in
> >> >> sourcebuild.texi.
> >> > Like this?
> >>
> >> a couple of ni
On Jun 27, 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:18 AM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> @@ -909,6 +909,13 @@ DEFTREECODE (TRY_CATCH_EXPR, "try_catch_expr",
>> tcc_statement, 2)
>> The second operand is a cleanup expression which is evaluated
>> on any exit (normal, exception, or ju
Hi.
This patch includes implementation of new function roundeven along
with two utility functions. The patch bootstraps on x86_64-linux-gnu
and passes regression tests.
Thanks,
Tejas
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-06-12 Tejas Joshi
* builtins.c (mathfn_built_in_2): Added CASE_MATHFN for ROUNDEVEN.
On 2019/6/27 11:48 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 6/27/19 12:11 AM, Li Jia He wrote:
Hi,
According to the optimizable case described by Qi Feng on
issue 88784, we can combine the cases into the following:
1. x > y && x != XXX_MIN --> x > y
2. x > y && x == XXX_MIN --> false
3. x <= y &
101 - 115 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
