Re: RFC: Changing AC_PROG_CC to AC_PROG_CC_C99 in top level configure

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:32 PM Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Apr 2021, Nick Clifton via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > Hi Guys, > > > > Given that gcc, gdb and now binutils are all now requiring C99 as a > > minimum version of C, are there any objections to updating > > configure.ac to refle

Re: [DWARF] Fix signedness issue in DWARF functions (2)

> At least sizetype is for GIMPLE compatible with size_t or unsigned long (or > whatever unsigned type has the same precision), so this looks wrong to me. It's for bitsizetype here, as it's a conversion from bits into bytes, so larger than DWARF2_ADDR_SIZE. > For non-strict DWARF or DWARF5 and a

[PATCH] avoid dereferencing a null pointer (PR 100250)

The VLA bounds that are included by the C front end to attribute access added to functions with VLA parameters to help detect redeclaratations of function with "mismatched" VLA bounds are cleared by the free_lang_data pass before the IL reaches the middle end. The clearing was done to fix pr97172

[PATCH] define auto_vec copy ctor and assignment (PR 90904)

PR 90904 notes that auto_vec is unsafe to copy and assign because the class manages its own memory but doesn't define (or delete) either special function. Since I first ran into the problem, auto_vec has grown a move ctor and move assignment from a dynamically-allocated vec but still no copy ctor

Re: [PATCH v2] Generate offset adjusted operation for op_by_pieces operations

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:45:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 12:21 AM H.J. Lu wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:12:10AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:35 AM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > For op_by_pieces ope

[PATCH v3 0/2] Generate offset adjusted operation for op_by_pieces operations

Add an overlap_op_by_pieces_p target hook for op_by_pieces operations between two areas of memory to generate one offset adjusted operation in the smallest integer mode for the remaining bytes on the last piece operation of a memory region to avoid doing more than one smaller operations. Pass the

[PATCH v3 1/2] op_by_pieces_d::run: Change a while loop to a do-while loop

Change a while loop in op_by_pieces_d::run to a do-while loop to prepare for offset adjusted operation for the remaining bytes on the last piece operation of a memory region. PR middl-end/90773 * expr.c (op_by_pieces_d::get_usable_mode): New member function. (op_by_pieces_d

[PATCH v3 2/2] Generate offset adjusted operation for op_by_pieces operations

Add an overlap_op_by_pieces_p target hook for op_by_pieces operations between two areas of memory to generate one offset adjusted operation in the smallest integer mode for the remaining bytes on the last piece operation of a memory region to avoid doing more than one smaller operations. Pass the

Re: [PATCH] Synchronize Rocket Lake's processor_names and processor_cost_table with processor_type

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 8:35 PM Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 3:43 PM Cui, Lili wrote: > > > > Hi Uros, > > > > This patch is to synchronize Rocket Lake's processor_names and > > processor_cost_table with processor_type. > > > > Bootstrap is ok, and no regressio

[PATCH] IBM Z: Handle hard registers in s390_md_asm_adjust()

Bootstrapped and regtested on s390x-redhat-linux. Tested with valgrind on top of 52a5515ed (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100278). Ok for master? gen_fprx2_to_tf() and gen_tf_to_fprx2() cannot handle hard registers, since the subregs they create do not pass validation. Chan

[PATCH] [RISCV] Add Pattern for builtin overflow

From: LevyHsu Added implementation for builtin overflow detection, new patterns are listed below. --- Addition: signed addition (SImode with RV32 || DImode with RV64): add t0, t1, t2 sltit3, t2, 0 slt

Re: [patch for gcc12 stage1][version 2] add -ftrivial-auto-var-init and variable attribute "uninitialized" to gcc

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Qing Zhao writes: > >>> @@ -1831,6 +2000,17 @@ gimplify_decl_expr (tree *stmt_p, gimple_seq > >>> *seq_p) > >>> as they may contain a label address. */ > >>> walk_tree (&init, force_labels_r, NULL, NULL); > >>> } > >>> + /* W

<    1   2