[ C++ ] [ PATCH ] [ RFC ] p1301 - [[nodiscard("should have a reason")]]

Attached is a patch for p1301 that improves in the way Jason Merrill specified earlier (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg00858.html), but it keeps segfaulting on my build of GCC. I don't know what changes I've made that cause it to segfault: it does so whenever the error() function is

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: -flto forgets 'no-vsx' function attributes (PR target/70010)

Segher Boessenkool writes: > So what should we do about this? There are arguments for *both* > behaviours, and apparently with LTO we do not know which flags are > explicit? Actually, from my testing, it seems the rs6000_isa_flags_explicit flags are set correctly in LTO! On 10/15/19 7:45 AM,

Re: [PATCH V3] Loop split upon semi-invariant condition (PR tree-optimization/89134)

Hi Philipp, This is an updated patch based on comments form Michael, and if he think this is ok, we will merge it into trunk. Thanks, Feng From: Philipp Tomsich Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:49 PM To: Feng Xue OS Cc: Michael Matz; Richard Biener

Re: [ C++ ] [ PATCH ] [ RFC ] p1301 - [[nodiscard("should have a reason")]]

I am also not very smart, wherein I attach patches that do not have the tests. Sorry! diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-lex.c b/gcc/c-family/c-lex.c index e3c602fbb8d..fb05b5f8af0 100644 --- a/gcc/c-family/c-lex.c +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-lex.c @@ -353,13 +353,14 @@ c_common_has_attribute (cpp_reader *pfile

Ping: [PATCH v5] Missed function specialization + partial devirtualization

Ping: Attachment: v5-0001-Missed-function-specialization-partial-devirtuali.patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/txtuTT17jV7n5.txt Thanks, Xiong Hu On 2019/9/27 15:13, luoxhu wrote: Hi Martin, Thanks for your time of so many round of reviews. It really helped me a lot. Updated

Re: [PATCH] rs6000: -flto forgets 'no-vsx' function attributes (PR target/70010)

Peter Bergner writes: > Segher Boessenkool writes: >> So what should we do about this? There are arguments for *both* >> behaviours, and apparently with LTO we do not know which flags are >> explicit? > > Actually, from my testing, it seems the rs6000_isa_flags_explicit > flags are set correctl

[PATCH] Clarify constness and state

    * src/c++11/debug.cc (print_field): Replace constness_names     entry with . Replace state_names entry with     . Committed as trivial. François Index: src/c++11/debug.cc === --- src/c++11/debug.cc (révision 277048) +++ sr

<    1   2