[PATCH 02/11] gcc/doc/extend.texi: Add documentation for __is_array

gcc/ChangeLog: * doc/extend.texi (__is_array): New documentation. Signed-off-by: Ken Matsui --- gcc/doc/extend.texi | 5 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi index b13f9d6f934..5aeb9bdd47a 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi +++ b/gc

[PATCH 10/11] gcc/doc/extend.texi: Add documentation for __is_scoped_enum

gcc/ChangeLog: * doc/extend.texi (__is_scoped_enum): New documentation. Signed-off-by: Ken Matsui --- gcc/doc/extend.texi | 5 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi index d36707fcdf3..fb2614176e5 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi ++

Re: [Patch] invoke.texi: Add note that -foffload= does not affect device detection

On 3/1/24 08:23, Tobias Burnus wrote: Not very often, but do I keep running into issues (fails, segfaults) related to testing programs compiled with a GCC without offload configured and then using the system libraries. - That's equivalent to having the system compiler (or any offload compiler) an

RE: [PATCH v3] RISC-V: Introduce gcc option mrvv-vector-bits for RVV

Sure thing. Pan -Original Message- From: Vineet Gupta Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 3:00 AM To: Li, Pan2 ; Kito Cheng ; 钟居哲 Cc: gcc-patches ; Wang, Yanzhang ; rdapp.gcc ; Jeff Law Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] RISC-V: Introduce gcc option mrvv-vector-bits for RVV Hi Pan, On 2/28/24 17:

[PATCH] c++: lambda capturing structured bindings [PR85889]

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for 15? (Or even trunk?) -- >8 -- clarifies that it's OK to capture structured bindings. [expr.prim.lambda.capture]/4 says "The identifier in a simple-capture shall denote a local entity" and [basic.pre]/3: "An entity

[PATCH] c++: direct-init of an array of class type [PR59465]

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk? I don't claim that this has to go to 14 though. -- >8 -- ...from another array in a mem-initializer should not be accepted. We already reject struct string {} a[1]; string x[1](a); but struct pair { string s[1]; pair()

[PATCH] c++: DECL_DECOMPOSITION_P cleanup

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for 15? -- >8 -- DECL_DECOMPOSITION_P already checks VAR_P but we repeat the check in a lot of places. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * decl.cc (duplicate_decls): Don't check VAR_P before DECL_DECOMPOSITION_P. * init.cc (build_aggr_ini

RE: [PATCH v2] DSE: Bugfix ICE after allow vector type in get_stored_val

Yeah, talking about this with robin offline for this fix. > Yes, but what we set tieable is e.g. V4QI and V2SF. That comes from different code lines. Jeff would like to learn more about extract_low_bits, it will first convert to int_mode and then call the tieable_p. And I bet the V4QI and V2SF c

Re: libbacktrace patch committed: Read symbol table of debuginfo file

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 7:47 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > This patch to libbacktrace reads symbol tables from debuginfo files. > These become another symbol table to search. This is needed if people > use --strip-all rather than --strip-debug when adding a debuglink > section. This fixes > htt

[PATCH] gcc, libcpp: Add warning switch for "#pragma once in main file" [PR89808]

This patch adds a warning switch for "#pragma once in main file". The warning option name is Wpragma-once-outside-header, which is the same as Clang. PR preprocessor/89808 gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: * c-opts.cc (c_common_handle_option): Handle OPT_Wpragma_once_outside_heade

[PATCH] c++: Don't set DECL_CONTEXT to nested template-template parameters [PR98881]

Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk? -- >8 -- When streaming in a nested template-template parameter as in the attached testcase, we end up reaching the containing template-template parameter in 'tpl_parms_fini'. We should not set the DECL_CONTEXT to this (nested) temp

RE: [PATCH v2] Draft|Internal-fn: Introduce internal fn saturation US_PLUS

Hi Richard and Tamar, I have a try with DEF_INTERNAL_SIGNED_OPTAB_FN for SAT_ADD/SUB/MUL but meet some problem when match.pd. For unsigned SAT_ADD = (x + y) | - ((x + y) < x), the match.pd can be (bit_ior:c (plus:c@2 @0 @1) (negate (convert (lt @2 @0. For unsigned SAT_SUB = x >= y ? x - y :

<    1   2