On 23/04/2024 09:56, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 11:51:00PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 11:24 PM Tom Tromey wrote:
>>> Jason> Someone mentioned earlier that gerrit was previously tried
>>> Jason> unsuccessfully.
>>>
>>> We tried it and gdb
On 23/04/2024 04:24, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Jason> Someone mentioned earlier that gerrit was previously tried
> Jason> unsuccessfully.
>
> We tried it and gdb and then abandoned it. We tried to integrate it
> into the traditional gdb development style, having it send email to
> gdb-patches. I
On 03/04/2024 14:23, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 14:59, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>> Another possible issue which may be better now than in years past
>> is that the versions of autoconf/automake required often had to be
>> installed by hand. I think newlib has gotten
On 06/03/2024 15:04, Andrew Carlotti via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:39:54PM +0100, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 12:00, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Christophe,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:22:33AM +0100, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
I've
On 04/03/2024 20:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 19:27, Vladimir Mezentsev
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/4/24 09:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> Tools like git (and svn before it) don't try to maintain time-stamps on
>>> patches, the tool just modifies the file and the
On 04/03/2024 16:42, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 16:41, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/03/2024 15:36, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> > On 04/03/2024 14:46, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 12:25, Jonathan Wakely
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
On 04/03/2024 14:46, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 12:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 10:44, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 10:36, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On
On 29/02/2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Sorry for cross-posting, but I'm not sure the rules/guidelines are the
> same in gcc vs binutils/gdb.
>
> TL;DR: are there some guidelines about how to use/enable maintainer-mode?
>
> In the context of the Linaro CI, I've been
On 14/12/2023 07:17, Surya Kumari Jangala via Gcc wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> Thanks a lot for your response!
>
> Another failure reported by the Linaro CI is as follows:
>
> Running gcc:gcc.dg/dg.exp ...
> FAIL: gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-1.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue
> "Performing
On 11/10/2023 09:58, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 11/10/2023 07:54, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/10/10 11:11 PM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to add a new register set to the GCN port, but I've hit a
>>> problem I don't understand.
>>>
>>> There are 256 new registers
On 10/10/2023 11:46, Richard Earnshaw (lists) via Gcc wrote:
> On 10/10/2023 10:47, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
>> Currently, -fsigned-char and -funsigned-char are only documented as C
>> language options, although they work for C++ as well (and Objective-C
>> and Objective
On 10/10/2023 10:47, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
> Currently, -fsigned-char and -funsigned-char are only documented as C
> language options, although they work for C++ as well (and Objective-C
> and Objective-C++, I assume, but I have not tested this). There does
> not seem to be a place for
On 11/09/2023 16:22, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 14:57, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 15:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 13:36, Christophe Lyon
>>> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at
On 08/09/2023 19:18, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I want to begin by apologizing because I know from first hand experience that
> scheduling can be an immensely painful job.
>
> The Cauldron 2023 schedule[1] looks packed and I noticed that Qing and
> David's talks on security
On 06/09/2023 15:03, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> On 6 Sep 2023, at 13:43, Richard Sandiford via Gcc wrote:
>>
>> Iain Sandoe writes:
>
>>> On the Darwin aarch64 port, we have a number of cleanup test fails (pretty
>>> much corresponding to the [still open]
>>>
On 23/08/2023 16:49, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches writes:
>> Now that we require C++ 11, we can safely forward declare rtx_code
>> so that we can use it in target hooks.
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog
>> * coretypes.h (rtx_code): Add forward declaration.
On 18/08/2023 17:37, FX Coudert via Gcc-patches wrote:
A rather trivial fix for fprintf() specifier of a HOST_WIDE_INT value.
Tested on aarch64-apple-darwin. OK to commit?
FX
OK.
R.
On 08/08/2023 20:39, Carlos O'Donell via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 8/8/23 13:46, David Edelsohn wrote:
I believe that upstream projects for components that are imported
into GCC should be responsible for their security policy, including
libgo, gofrontend, libsanitizer (other than local patches),
On 08/08/2023 15:40, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 2023-08-08 10:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 10:30:10AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
Do you have a suggestion for the language to address libgcc, libstdc++,
etc. and libiberty, libbacktrace, etc.?
I'll work on this a bit
On 07/08/2023 16:51, Şahin Duran via Gcc wrote:
Dear GCC Developers,
I think I've just discovered a bug/ undefined situation in the compiler.
When I try to call a weakly defined function, compiler successfully
generates the code of calling procedure. However, this calling procedure is
nothing
We have now finalized the ticket price for this year's Cauldron at £75.
Sarah is now contacting those who have already registered to arrange
payment.
If you have not yet registered then there is still time. Registration
closes at 12 Noon BST (7am EDT) on Friday 1st September, and all tickets
On 11/07/2023 15:54, Richard Earnshaw (lists) via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 11/07/2023 10:37, Florian Weimer via Gcc-patches wrote:
libgcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64-unwind.h (aarch64_cie_signed_with_b_key):
Add missing const qualifier. Cast from const unsigned char *
to const char
On 11/07/2023 10:37, Florian Weimer via Gcc-patches wrote:
libgcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64-unwind.h (aarch64_cie_signed_with_b_key):
Add missing const qualifier. Cast from const unsigned char *
to const char *. Use __builtin_strchr to avoid an implicit
On 03/07/2023 17:42, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
Hi Ian,
W dniu 3.07.2023 o 17:07, Ian Lance Taylor pisze:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:21 PM Rafał Pietrak via Gcc
wrote:
[]
I was thinking about that, and it doesn't look as requiring that deep
rewrites. ABI spec, that could
On 03/07/2023 15:34, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023, 4:33 AM Claudio Eterno
wrote:
Hi Joel, I'll give an answer ASAP on the newlib and libgloss...
I supposed your question were about the licences question on newlib,
instead you were really asking what changed on the repo libs...
On 28/06/2023 17:07, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Mittwoch, dem 28.06.2023 um 16:44 +0100 schrieb Richard Earnshaw (lists):
On 28/06/2023 15:51, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
Hi Martin,
W dniu 28.06.2023 o 15:00, Martin Uecker pisze:
Sounds like named address spaces to me:
On 28/06/2023 15:51, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
Hi Martin,
W dniu 28.06.2023 o 15:00, Martin Uecker pisze:
Sounds like named address spaces to me:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Named-Address-Spaces.html
Only to same extend, and only in x86 case.
The goal of the wish-item I've
On 28/06/2023 10:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
This tests currently expect a directive containing .fpu fpv5-sp-d16
and thus may fail if the test is executed for instance with
-march=armv8.1-m.main+mve.fp+fp.dp
This patch accepts either fpv5-sp-d16 or fpv5-d16 to avoid the failure.
On 28/06/2023 10:26, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
If GCC is configured with the default (soft) -mfloat-abi, and we don't
override the target_board test flags appropriately,
gcc.target/arm/mve/general-c/nomve_fp_1.c fails for lack of
-mfloat-abi=softfp or -mfloat-abi=hard, because it
On 01/06/2023 05:26, YunQiang Su wrote:
speculation_barrier for MIPS needs sync+jr.hb (r2+),
so we implement __speculation_barrier in libgcc, like arm32 does.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/mips/mips-protos.h (mips_emit_speculation_barrier): New
prototype.
*
On 08/06/2023 11:00, Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi All,
This converts some patterns in the AArch64 backend to use the new
compact syntax.
Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu and no issues.
Ok for master?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (arches):
On 08/06/2023 11:29, Richard Earnshaw (lists) via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 08/06/2023 11:12, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Jun 08 2023, Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches wrote:
@@ -713,6 +714,183 @@ you can use @samp{*} inside of a @samp{@@}
multi-alternative template:
@end group
@end smallexample
On 08/06/2023 11:12, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Jun 08 2023, Tamar Christina via Gcc-patches wrote:
@@ -713,6 +714,183 @@ you can use @samp{*} inside of a @samp{@@}
multi-alternative template:
@end group
@end smallexample
+@node Compact Syntax
+@section Compact Syntax
+@cindex compact
On 06/06/2023 13:49, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
Tamar Christina writes:
int operand_number; /* Operand index in the big array. */
int output_format; /* INSN_OUTPUT_FORMAT_*. */
+ bool compact_syntax_p;
struct operand_data operand[MAX_MAX_OPERANDS];
On 23/05/2023 19:41, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
For some time now I am staring at the following test case and what
combine does with it:
typedef struct
{
unsigned b0 : 1;
unsigned b1 : 1;
unsigned b2 : 1;
unsigned b3 : 1;
unsigned b4 : 1;
unsigned b5 : 1;
On 24/04/2023 09:33, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
Richard Sandiford writes:
Tamar Christina writes:
Hi All,
This patch adds support for a compact syntax for specifying constraints in
instruction patterns. Credit for the idea goes to Richard Earnshaw.
I am sending up this RFC to
On 12/05/2023 13:30, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:33:01AM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
One fairly big GCC-internal task is to clear up the C test suite so that
it passes with the new compiler defaults. I already have an offer of
help for that, so I think we can
On 10/05/2023 03:38, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote:
From: Arsen Arsenović
Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Jakub Jelinek ,
jwakely@gmail.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 22:21:03 +0200
The concern is using the good will of the GNU Toolchain brand as the tip of
the spear or battering ram to
On 13/01/2023 22:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:58:26PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> I'm afraid increasing number of DWARF registers is ABI incompatible change.
> E.g. libgcc __frame_state_for function fills in:
> typedef struct frame_state
> {
> void *cfa;
>
On 13/01/2023 18:02, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 05:44:15PM +, Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches
wrote:
Hello,
This patch teaches the DWARF support in gcc about RA_AUTH_CODE pseudo
hard-register and also
updates the ".save", ".cfi_register",
Fix a signed vs unsigned comparison in last change.
gcc:
* common/config/arm/arm-common.c (arm_config_default): Change type
of 'i' to unsigned.
---
gcc/common/config/arm/arm-common.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
On 03/03/2021 14:11, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 14:55, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>>
>> Hopefully this change will reduce the number of times Christophe is
>> needing to tweak the testsuite.
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
> I guess this means we can now do some
Hopefully this change will reduce the number of times Christophe is
needing to tweak the testsuite.
--
Arm processors can support up to two instruction sets. Some early
cores only support the traditional A32 (Arm) instructions, while some
more recent devices only support T32 (Thumb)
Commit r10-6017 relaxed the constraint on thumb2 calls to
__gnu_cmse_nonsecure_call to allow any register for the call address.
Although the initial code expansion continues to use r4 with the FPCXT
extension is not enabled, the change was unsafe because subsequent
optimizations could use the
On 10/02/2021 17:44, Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches writes:
>
>> "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" writes:
>>
>>> On 09/02/2021 16:27, Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches wrote:
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:09:43PM +0100, Jakub
On 09/02/2021 16:27, Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:09:43PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
"TARGET_32BIT && TARGET_HAVE_LOB"
- "le\t%|lr, %l0")
+ "*
+ if (get_attr_length (insn) == 4)
+
On 26/11/2020 13:53, Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to submit the following simple patch to clean some Low Loop
> Overhead test failing on hard float configurations.
>
> lob2.c and lob5.c are failing with: "'-mfloat-abi=hard': selected
> processor lacks an FPU".
>
arm_split_atomic_op handles subtracting a constant by converting it
into addition of the negated constant. But if the type of the operand
is int and the constant is -1 we currently end up generating invalid
RTL which can lead to an abort later on.
The problem is that in a HOST_WIDE_INT, INT_MIN
On 19/11/2020 14:40, Wilco Dijkstra via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
>
As for your second patch, --with-cpu-64 could be a simple alias indeed,
but what is the exact definition/expected behaviour of a --with-cpu-32
on a target that only supports 64-bit code? The AArch64
On 18/11/2020 17:16, Pop, Sebastian via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/18/20, 10:17 AM, "Wilco Dijkstra" wrote:
>>I presume you're trying to unify the --with- options across most targets?
>
> Yes, my intention was to provide the same configure options on arm64
> as on x86, such that
On 17/11/2020 15:18, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 11/17/20 1:44 PM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 03/11/2020 15:08, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this fixes a problem with a missing symbol __sync_synchronize
>>> which happens when newlib is used together with libstdc++ for
>>> the
On 03/11/2020 15:08, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this fixes a problem with a missing symbol __sync_synchronize
> which happens when newlib is used together with libstdc++ for
> the non-threaded simulator target arm-none-eabi.
>
> There are several questions on stackoverflow about this issue.
52 matches
Mail list logo
