[PATCH] Fix skip.exp test failure observed with gcc-9.2.0

Hi, this is the split out patch on skip.exp which fixes a pre-existing compatibilty issue with that test case and gcc-9.2.0 (and gcc-10 from trunk of a few weeks ago at least, likely other versions too). Is it OK for trunk? Thanks Bernd. gdb/testsuite: 2019-12-15 Bernd Edlinger *

Re: [PATCH] Fix skip.exp test failure observed with gcc-9.2.0

Oh, sorry, worng mailing list. Please ignore this one. On 12/15/19 12:25 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi, > > this is the split out patch on skip.exp which fixes a pre-existing > compatibilty issue with that test case and gcc-9.2.0 (and gcc-10 from > trunk of a few weeks ago at least, likely other

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pretty-print: support URL escape sequences (PR 87488)

This patch has made my terminal beeps on every warning message, which is so noisy. May be this feature should be disabled by default, unless enabled by configure time option, runtime option or runtime environment variables.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pretty-print: support URL escape sequences (PR 87488)

On Sun, 2019-12-15 at 19:38 +0800, 王昊然 wrote: > This patch has made my terminal beeps on every warning message, which > is so noisy. Sorry about this. > May be this feature should be disabled by default, unless enabled by > configure time option, runtime option or runtime environment > variables.

*Ping* Introduce -finline-arg-packing

Am 10.12.19 um 22:22 schrieb Thomas Koenig: Steve made an excellent suggestion: -finline-arg-packing . So, OK with that change? In other words, is https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg00485.html OK with renaming the option to -finline-arg-packing ? Regards Thomas

Re: *Ping* Introduce -finline-arg-packing

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 07:11:25PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Am 10.12.19 um 22:22 schrieb Thomas Koenig: > > Steve made an excellent suggestion: -finline-arg-packing . > > > > So, OK with that change? > > In other words, is > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg00485.html > > OK

[PATCH] Fix documentation of -mpoke-function-name ARM option

Hi! Since in ARM state the value of PC is the address of the current instruction plus 8 bytes, the code inspecting the value of PC stored at FP + 0 should look at location PC - 16 : PC - 8 points to the stmfd instruction, PC - 16 points two words before, where the top 8 bits are set. gcc/ 2019-12

[Patch, fortran] PR92753 - [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_call, at fortran/trans-stmt.c:392

This patch is straight forward and well explained by the ChangeLogs. The ICE comes about because the simplification of the inquiry_part_ref expressions produced bad expressions. Thanks to Steve for spotting the error in the INQUIRY_RE and INQUIRY_IM parts that was so blindingly obvious that I coul

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR92753 - [9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_call, at fortran/trans-stmt.c:392

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 06:41:50PM +, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > This patch is straight forward and well explained by the ChangeLogs. > The ICE comes about because the simplification of the inquiry_part_ref > expressions produced bad expressions. > > Thanks to Steve for spotting the error in

Re: [PATCH, c] all plattforms: support using a CC_REG instead cc0_rtx

On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 17:25 +0100, Stefan Franke wrote: > Hi there, > > I suggest this patch to allow architectures do substitute cc0_rtx with a > generated cc register. > > Why? If you are using a cc register plus your architecture as many > instructions which may clobber that cc register, som

Re: [PATCH, c] all plattforms: support using a CC_REG instead cc0_rtx

On Sat, 2019-12-14 at 03:55 +0100, Stefan Franke wrote: > Am 2019-12-13 21:59, schrieb Segher Boessenkool: > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 08:55:15PM +0100, Stefan Franke wrote: > > > Am 2019-12-13 18:58, schrieb Segher Boessenkool: > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 05:25:41PM +0100, Stefan Franke wrote:

Re: [PATCH, c] all plattforms: support using a CC_REG instead cc0_rtx

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 03:45:34PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > For x86, patterns which set/clobber the condition codes have explicit > sets/clobbers of the flags register. As a result the dataflow is > accurately represented and the optimizers don't really have to do > anything special. It's no diff

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pretty-print: support URL escape sequences (PR 87488)

> Which revision of gcc is this? Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=/opt/gcc-10.0-20191208/bin/gcc-10.0-20191208 COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/gcc-10.0-20191208/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/10.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-10-20191208/configure --prefix=/usr/lo

[Committed] Add some __int128 bitfield testcases

Hi, While working on the bit-field lowering patch, I noticed there was no testcases that used int128_t as bit-fields. So I added some. Including two that uses scalar_storage_order. These are just compile testcases. Committed as obvious after testing on x86_64 to make sure the testcases pass.

Re: std::vector code cleanup fixes optimizations

A small refresh on this patch now tested also for versioned namespace which require printers.py to be updated. Note that this simplification works also for normal mode so I can apply it independently from the stl_bvector.h part.     * include/bits/stl_bvector.h     [_GLIBCXX_INLINE_VERSION](