Here is the new patch after fixing all the issues pointed out in the previous
version.
call_string.patch
Description: Binary data
—
Question :
1. The mail id I am using here to send the patch ( arsenic.second...@gmail.com
) and the mail id in the patch ( arse...@sourceware.org ) are differ
On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 at 16:03, Ankur Saini via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Here is the new patch after fixing all the issues pointed out in the previous
> version.
Just a nitpick:
+/* call_string::element_t's inequality operator. */
+bool
+call_string::element_t::operator!= (const call_string::elemen
Two arguments are switched for -Wnonnull when
warning about array parameters with bounds > 0
and which are NULL.
This patch corrects the mistake.
Martin
2021-07-25 Martin Uecker
gcc/
* calls.c (maybe_warn_rdwr_sizes): Correct argument
numbers in warning that were switched.
gcc/t
> On Jul 25, 2021, at 10:59 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the 5th version of the patch for the new security feature for GCC.
>
> I have tested it with bootstrap on both x86 and aarch64, regression testing
> on both x86 and aarch64.
> Also compile and run CPU201
Here is an updated version of my TS29113 testsuite. The last version I
posted became kind of bit-rotten after Tobias's commit "Fortran: Fix
bind(C) character length checks" for PR92842, which changed the wording
of the error message that I'd been catching with dg-bogus in many
places. I've al
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 12:30 AM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/14/2021 3:14 AM, bin.cheng via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I ran into a wrong code bug in code with deep template instantiation when
> > working on sdx::simd.
> > The root cause as described in commit summary is we s
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 1:13 PM Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:18 PM liuhongt wrote:
> >
> > From: "H.J. Lu"
> >
> > 1. FP16 vector xor/ior/and/andnot/abs/neg
> > 2. FP16 scalar abs/neg/copysign/xorsign
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * config/i386/i386-expand.c (ix86_exp
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 8:27 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 5:39 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 12:50 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:51 AM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 12:13 AM Uros Bizjak via Gcc-patch
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 6:41 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> This avoids using multiple_of_p in niter analysis when its behavior
Hmm, but this patch actually introduces one more call to
multiple_of_p, also it doesn't touch the below use:
if (niter->control.no_overflow && multiple_of_p (type, c, s))
