> The important difference is for strn{,case}cmp folding, we pass that s2
> value as the last argument to the host functions comparing the c_getstr
> results. If s2 fits into size_t, then my patch makes no difference,
> but if it is larger, we know the 2 c_getstr objects need to fit into the
> hos
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 01:49:29PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > The important difference is for strn{,case}cmp folding, we pass that s2
> > value as the last argument to the host functions comparing the c_getstr
> > results. If s2 fits into size_t, then my patch makes no difference,
> > but if
Hi,
A number of ELF-specific tests were introduced in r11-6140, one
of which fails on all Mach-O/Darwin platforms.
On examination, the tests have no meaningful parallel for Mach-O
which dead strips at the symbol level, and does not make use of
function sections (the fact that a used and an unused
After the debug issue has been fixed in PR 98466 the problem was not in
the debug iterator implementation itself but in the deque iterator
operator- implementation.
libstdc++: Make deque iterator operator- usable with value-init
iterators
N3644 implies that operator- can be used on v
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 02:12:46PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 01:49:29PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > The important difference is for strn{,case}cmp folding, we pass that s2
> > > value as the last argument to the host functions comparing the c_getstr
> In patch form now (for ~ we'd need to use (size_t) ~(size_t) 0 to be
> fully portable, I think nothing in the standard requires that size_t isn't
> e.g. unsigned char or unsigned short that would then promote to int.
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> 2021-01-31 Jakub Jelinek
>
> * fold-const-call
> Why not just:
>
> #ifndef SIZE_MAX
> # define SIZE_MAX INTTYPE_MAXIMUM (size_t)
> #endif
>
> just below UCHAR_MAX in system.h?
Or rather just below
#ifdef HAVE_STDINT_H
#include
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_INTTYPES_H
#include
#endif
--
Eric Botcazou
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 07:07:32PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Why not just:
> >
> > #ifndef SIZE_MAX
> > # define SIZE_MAX INTTYPE_MAXIMUM (size_t)
> > #endif
> >
> > just below UCHAR_MAX in system.h?
>
> Or rather just below
>
> #ifdef HAVE_STDINT_H
> #include
> #endif
>
> #ifdef HAVE_I
FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/attribute-18.c scan-assembler .attribute arch,
"rv64i2p0_m2p0_a2p0_f2p0_d2p0_c2p0_p"
$ grep -c 'attribute arch' attribute-18.s
0
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for somet
> If it doesn't break anything (note, there can be system headers included
> even after this spot), why not.
OK, then maybe move them to the end. Or define
#define __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS
just before the two aforementioned includes, so that this doesn't happen again
with another macro.
> Note, it
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 07:07:32PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Why not just:
> >
> > #ifndef SIZE_MAX
> > # define SIZE_MAX INTTYPE_MAXIMUM (size_t)
> > #endif
> >
> > just below UCHAR_MAX in system.h?
>
> Or rather just below
>
> #ifdef HAVE_STDINT_H
> #include
> #endif
>
> #ifdef HAVE_I
> Whatever works, I can't test such patches except on Linux, so can you just
> create a patch and test it on Solaris where it failed before?
It fails on old Linux distros, e.g. RHES 5, not on Solaris as far as I know.
--
Eric Botcazou
> Whatever works, I can't test such patches except on Linux, so can you just
> create a patch and test it on Solaris where it failed before?
Maybe a safer fix is the attached one. Tested on old RedHat and SuSE distros.
* fold-const-call.c: Define __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS at the top.
--
Eri
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 09:19:07PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Whatever works, I can't test such patches except on Linux, so can you just
> > create a patch and test it on Solaris where it failed before?
>
> Maybe a safer fix is the attached one. Tested on old RedHat and SuSE distros.
>
>
>
> But next time we use SIZE_MAX somewhere it is going to break again this way.
> If we just define SIZE_MAX if not defined after all includes in system.h, I
> think it is better than this.
The existing practice seems to define the missing constants right after the
corresponding include, e.g. MAP_
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 10:48:53PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > But next time we use SIZE_MAX somewhere it is going to break again this way.
> > If we just define SIZE_MAX if not defined after all includes in system.h, I
> > think it is better than this.
>
> The existing practice seems to defin
The initial -Wnonnull implementation in the middle end took place
too late in the pipeline (just before expansion), and as a result
was prone to false positives (bug 78817). In an attempt to avoid
the worst of those, the warning was moved to the ccp2 pass in
r243874. However, as the test case in
On 1/30/21 12:36 AM, Eric Gallager wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:04 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhancement to diagnose accesses whose
leading offset is in bounds but whose trailing offset is not has
been causing some confusion. When the warning is issu
Hi Andreas and Kito,
I haven't reproduced this failure, but it looks that I forget to
append `-mriscv-attribute` to dg-options in attribute-18.c. I'll reply
to this thread ASAP.
Thanks,
Xing
On 2/1/21, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.target/riscv/attribute-18.c scan-assembler .attribute arch,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:37:21PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> I still do not see what this improves, I only see possible obvious
> regressions :-(
You asked me to break the patch series into small pieces, for ease of
review and to separate tidies from functional changes. Well OK, fair
eno
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:51:43PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 09:27:57AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rotate_insert_cost): New function.
> > (rs6000_rtx_costs): Cost IOR.
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gc
BE ilp32 Linux generates extra stack stwu instructions which shouldn't
be counted in, \m … \M is needed around each instruction, not just the
beginning and end of the entire pattern. Pre-approved, committing.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2021-02-01 Xionghu Luo
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr79251
22 matches
Mail list logo
