On 2/9/20 2:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
The first (valid) testcase ICEs because for
A *a = new B ();
a->foo (); // virtual method call
we actually see &heap and the "heap " objects don't have the class or
whatever else type was used in new expression, but an array type containing
one
On 2/6/20 7:30 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
In ed4f2c001a883b2456fc607a33f1c59f9c4ee65d I changed the call to
fold_non_dependent_expr in check_narrowing to maybe_constant_value.
That was the wrong thing to do as these tests show: check_narrowing
bails out for dependent expressions but we can still ha
The helpers that implement BUILTIN-PTR-CMP do not currently check if the
arguments are actually comparable, so the concept is true when it
shouldn't be.
Since we're trying to test for an unambiguous conversion to pointers, we
can also require that it returns bool, because the built-in comparisons
* include/std/ranges: Fix non-ASCII characters in comment.
Tested x86_64-linux, committed to master.
commit 97a7c22955435c0466ea96c6d77d2a71b2ae1277
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Sun Feb 9 13:54:32 2020 +
libstdc++: Fix non-ASCII characters in comment
* includ
On 09/02/20 13:56 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The helpers that implement BUILTIN-PTR-CMP do not currently check if the
arguments are actually comparable, so the concept is true when it
shouldn't be.
Since we're trying to test for an unambiguous conversion to pointers, we
can also require that
Fix target selector for pr91333.c
* gcc.target/i386/pr91333.c (dg-do): Fix target selector.
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu {,-m32}.
Uros.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr91333.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr91333.c
index 269491202ae..2bdff871024 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 2:43 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> Linux CET kernel places a restore token on shadow stack for signal
> handler to enhance security. The restore token is 8 byte and aligned
> to 8 bytes. It is usually transparent to user programs since kernel
> will pop the restore token when sign
On 2/6/20 9:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
PR analyzer/93405 reports an ICE when attempting to use -fanalyzer on
certain gfortran code. The second patch in this kit fixes that, but
in the meantime I need somewhere to put regression tests for -fanalyzer
with gfortran.
This patch adds a gfortran.dg
On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 09:15:46PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 2/6/20 9:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > PR analyzer/93405 reports an ICE when attempting to use -fanalyzer on
> > certain gfortran code. The second patch in this kit fixes that, but
> > in the meantime I need somewhere to put reg
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 12:55 -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 09:15:46PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
> > On 2/6/20 9:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > > PR analyzer/93405 reports an ICE when attempting to use
> > > -fanalyzer on
> > > certain gfortran code. The second patch in th
On 2/9/20 9:55 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 09:15:46PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
On 2/6/20 9:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
PR analyzer/93405 reports an ICE when attempting to use -fanalyzer on
certain gfortran code. The second patch in this kit fixes that, but
in the meantim
Ping...
the latest version of this patch is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00121.html
Thanks
Bernd.
On 2/3/20 11:29 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 2/3/20 10:05 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 08:16:52PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> So gnome term
*ping*
On Friday, January 31, 2020 5:06:49 PM PST Andrew Benson wrote:
> I've attached on updated patch for PR83113. The now removes the ICE when a
> duplicate DIMENSION attribute is specified in a submodule function. The
> patch reg tests cleanly.
>
> OK to commit?
>
> Note that this patch doe
PR driver/93645
* common.opt (-fuse-ld=): Delete -fuse-ld=[bfd|gold|lld]. Add -fuse-ld=.
* opts.c (common_handle_option): Handle OPT_fuse_ld_.
* gcc.c (driver_handle_option): Likewise.
* collect2.c (main): Likewise.
---
gcc/ChangeLog | 8 ++
gcc/c
Patch looks to me. OK to commit.
I'm wondering if we need a macro or helper function to
simplify in conditional from
+ if (gfc_state_stack->previous && gfc_state_stack->previous->previous
+ && gfc_state_stack->previous->previous->state == COMP_SUBMODULE
+ && sym->attr.module_procedure
On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 04:19:13PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 12:55 -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 09:15:46PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
> > > On 2/6/20 9:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >
> > > > PR analyzer/93405 reports an ICE when attempting to use
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the review. Adding a macro as you suggest seems like a very good
idea. I'll make that change tomorrow before committing this.
Thanks,
Andrew
--
* Andrew Benson: http://users.obs.carnegiescience.edu/abenson/contact.html
* Galacticus: https://github.com/galacticusorg/galact
Ping,
attachment of
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00764/exchange2.tar.gz
shows the profile count difference on cloned nodes digits_2.constprop.[0...8]
without/with this patch. Thanks!
Xiong Hu
On 2020/1/14 14:45, luoxhu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020/1/3 00:58, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>> - gcc_checking_assert (item->value);
> I've been staring at this for quite a while, trying to figure out how
> your patch can put NULL here before I realized it was just a clean-up
> :-) Sending such changes independently or pointing them out in the
> email/ChangeLog makes review eas
Hi Segher,
on 2020/1/20 下午8:33, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:36:52PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> As we discussed in the thread
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00196.html
>> Original: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00104.html,
>> I'm
Hi Segher,
Thanks for your comments! Updated to v2 as below:
1) Removed unnecessary hook loop_unroll_adjust_tree.
2) Updated estimated_uf to estimated_unroll and some comments.
gcc/ChangeLog
2020-02-10 Kewen Lin
* cfgloop.h (struct loop): New field estimated_unroll.
* t
Hi Segher,
Updated as below according to your suggestion.
BR,
Kewen
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2020-02-10 Kelvin Nilsen
Kewen Lin
* gcc.target/powerpc/p9-dform-0.c: New test.
* gcc.target/powerpc/p9-dform-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/powerpc/p9-df
Hi Jakub,
On 07.02.20 16:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 09:56:38AM +0100, Harwath, Frederik wrote:
>> * {target-32.c, thread-limit-2.c}:
>> no "usleep" implemented for nvptx. Cf. https://gcc.gnu.org/PR81690
>
> Please don't, I want to deal with that using declare variant, just
23 matches
Mail list logo
