Currently, .cfi_endproc and FUNC_END(__trampoline_setup) are placed
inside the #else branch of an "#if defined (__VXWORKS__) ...", so
non-pic vxworks does not get proper CFI nor a .size directive for
__trampoline_setup. I assume there's no magic reason for that (which
would warrant a comment), so
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 20:58, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 08:58:34PM +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> > On 13 September 2018 at 20:41, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >> Okay. Do you think we should have an sfk_kind for non-canonical
> > >> copy/move operations? That would
On 2018-12-11, 11:14:24, Olivier Hainque wrote:
(A message that remained in my drafts box)
On 3 Dec 2018, at 16:50, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote:
Matching front-end bits to support Acc_Kernels, Acc_Parallel,
Acc_Loop and Acc_Data.
Note that this was all originally contributed by Ghujan
[ Fixed ENOPATCH ]
On 12-12-18 08:03, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 11-12-18 18:59, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:50 AM Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
>>> Add test-case that forces alloc.c functions to fail, and check whether fail
>>> handling is robust.
>>>
>>> This is the test-case
On 11-12-18 18:59, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:50 AM Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>> Add test-case that forces alloc.c functions to fail, and check whether fail
>> handling is robust.
>>
>> This is the test-case for "[libbacktrace] Fix segfault upon allocation
>> failure".
HI Terry,Kyrill
I'm sorry to reply to your email after a week, it's a busy week.
Glad to receive your advice, Follow kyrill's advice ,adjust the reservation
to 12 cycles, the result shows that it will not affect the scheduling
performance.
I have modified the patch according to the
On 12/5/18 10:14 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 12/4/18 8:49 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
What is the "it" referenced in the user's questions you quoted? The
const/pure attributes? Those are function attributes. The text you
are adding is in the type attribute section, so it seemed like it was
On 12/11/18 11:34 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
While working on the libstdc++ patch for P0595R2, I've noticed that while
__builtin_is_constant_evaluated () directly works, when wrapped into
an constexpr inline noexcept function, it in some cases doesn't. The
problem is that the constexpr call
Committed as obvious.
The attached patch set an expression locus to gfc_current_locus
to avoid a NULL pointer reference when emitting an error message.
On beneficial fallout to this patch required a fix up to the
testcase gfortran.dg/pr70870_1.f90.
2018-12-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR
On 11.12.18 22:01, Cherry Zhang wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 3:51 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:52 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10.12.18 16:54, Cherry Zhang wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:41 AM Matthias Klose
>> wrote:
> On 06.12.18 00:09,
On 11/5/18 12:39 PM, Tom Honermann wrote:
This patch adds documentation for new -fchar8_t and -fno-char8_t options.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-11-04 Tom Honermann
* doc/invoke.texi (-fchar8_t): Document new option.
My comments are all about nitpicky formatting things.
diff --git
On 12/11/18 6:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 12/11/18 3:52 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:46:37PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 12/11/18 1:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch
I've committed the attached patch. It does two things.
(1) It adds checking for a UNIT number when a file positioning
statement contains ERR=. (2) It passes a locus so that a
sensible error message is printed,
2018-12-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88249
* gfortran.h: Update
This is the modified version of the second of my Aarch64 SIMD ABI patches.
While implementing this functionality I found I wanted
targetm.simd_clone.adjust to be called when creating SIMD clone definitions
and also when creating SIMD clone declarations. The current
implementation (used only by
On 12/11/18 3:52 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:46:37PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 12/11/18 1:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch that restores
the original behavior for
This is the failure of the libada build when the compiler is configured with
--disable-shared in a multilib setup, a regression present on the mainline.
To be honest, I don't quite grasp why this doesn't also fail the same way in
default mode. While I was at it, I have done something I had
On Fri, 2018-12-07 at 17:34 +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> I'm not an expert on this stuff, but it looks like:
>
> struct cgraph_node *node = cgraph_node::get (fndecl);
> return node && node->simdclone;
>
> might work. But in some ways it would be cleaner to add the
>
On 12/11/18 4:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:35:39PM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
tree
-maybe_constant_value (tree t, tree decl)
+maybe_constant_value (tree t, tree decl, bool pretend_const_required)
{
tree r;
Could you please describe the new param in the
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:46:37PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 12/11/18 1:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > Attached is an updated version of the patch that restores
> > > the original behavior for the positional argument
On 12/11/18 1:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch that restores
the original behavior for the positional argument validation
(i.e., prior to r266195) for integral types except bool as
discussed.
PR c++/88375 reports that errors relating to invalid conversions in
initializations are reported at unhelpfully vague locations, as in
e.g.:
enum struct a : int {
one, two
};
struct foo {
int e1, e2;
a e3;
} arr[] = {
{ 1, 2, a::one },
{ 3, a::two },
{ 4, 5, a::two }
};
for which
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:35:39PM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > tree
> > -maybe_constant_value (tree t, tree decl)
> > +maybe_constant_value (tree t, tree decl, bool pretend_const_required)
> > {
> >tree r;
> >
>
> Could you please describe the new param in the comment?
>
> Perhaps
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:48:17AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/10/18 2:52 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > + if (processing_template_decl && value_dependent_expression_p (expr))
>
> You don't need to check processing_template_decl before
> value_dependent_expression_p.
Ok.
> I would lean
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 3:51 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:52 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> >
> > On 10.12.18 16:54, Cherry Zhang wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:41 AM Matthias Klose
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 06.12.18 00:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > >>> This
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:52 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> On 10.12.18 16:54, Cherry Zhang wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:41 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> >
> >> On 06.12.18 00:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >>> This libgo patch by Cherry Zhang adds support for precise stack
> >>> scanning to
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:36:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Attached is an updated version of the patch that restores
> the original behavior for the positional argument validation
> (i.e., prior to r266195) for integral types except bool as
> discussed.
I thought Jason wanted to also warn
On 12/11/18 12:17 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 04:30:11PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Some of my testing exposed a minor problem in GCC 9's validation
of the type of function parameters referred to by attribute
positional arguments. Whereas GCC 8 accepts all C integer types,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:39:25PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As mentioned in the PR, while we allow VLAs in some contexts in C++ as
> an extension, they aren't standard and the standard requires in those spots
> constant expressions, thus __builtin_is_constant_evaluated () needs to be
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 12/11/18 11:15 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> >> I recently brought up the question of the write w/o approval
> >> policy on the gcc list:
> >>
> >>
Ping re this patch:
"[PATCH 2/2] v2: C++: improvements to binary operator diagnostics (PR
c++/87504)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg00236.html
(...which is dependent on:
"[PATCH 1/2] v3: C++: more location wrapper nodes (PR c++/43064, PR
c++/43486)"
On 12/11/18 11:15 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
I recently brought up the question of the write w/o approval
policy on the gcc list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-11/msg00165.html
looking for clarification. Except for Jeff's comment (which
I'm afraid
On 12/11/18 11:15 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:59:27AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
[*] The change in the patch is obvious enough to me. All it
does is accept more of the things that are accepted by GCC 8
(enums, bools, wchar_t, etc.) and that inadvertently started
to be
On 12/11/18 10:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 09:56:46PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> commit d90b13427e4940adabc4320c68ca88513dee2eef
>> Author: Jeff Law
>> Date: Mon Dec 10 21:46:41 2018 -0700
>>
>> PR tree-optimization/80520
>> *
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 08:58:34PM +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On 13 September 2018 at 20:41, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> Okay. Do you think we should have an sfk_kind for non-canonical
> >> copy/move operations? That would presumably make it a tad more
> >> straightforward to go from
> >>
On 12/8/18 4:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 01:15:46AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20180920/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-virtual2.C:33:26:
error: non-constant condition for static assertion
OK.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:35 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:26:00AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 12/10/18 8:48 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > A template-argument for a non-type template-parameter shall be a converted
> > > constant expression. But an
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:26:00AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/10/18 8:48 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > A template-argument for a non-type template-parameter shall be a converted
> > constant expression. But an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion applied to a
> > volatile
> > glvalue is not
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I recently brought up the question of the write w/o approval
> policy on the gcc list:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-11/msg00165.html
>
> looking for clarification. Except for Jeff's comment (which
> I'm afraid didn't really clarify things),
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:59:27AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> [*] The change in the patch is obvious enough to me. All it
> does is accept more of the things that are accepted by GCC 8
> (enums, bools, wchar_t, etc.) and that inadvertently started
> to be rejected as a result of my prior
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:50 AM Tom de Vries wrote:
>
> Add test-case that forces alloc.c functions to fail, and check whether fail
> handling is robust.
>
> This is the test-case for "[libbacktrace] Fix segfault upon allocation
> failure". Without that patch, this test-case fails like this:
>
+ {
+ error_at (loc, "duplicate asm qualifier %qE", token->value);
We have been making an effort to quote keywords, identifiers,
option names, and other such things in diagnostics. In
the message above and all others like it in this patch kit
that mention "asm" the
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 09:56:46PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> commit d90b13427e4940adabc4320c68ca88513dee2eef
> Author: Jeff Law
> Date: Mon Dec 10 21:46:41 2018 -0700
>
> PR tree-optimization/80520
> * gimple-ssa-split-paths.c (is_feasible_trace): Recognize half
>
On 11/12/18 17:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
The following patch adds std::is_constant_evaluated to the library.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
(relies on the previously posted C++ FE patch).
2018-12-11 Jakub Jelinek
P0595R2 -
On 12/11/18 12:17 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 04:30:11PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Some of my testing exposed a minor problem in GCC 9's validation
of the type of function parameters referred to by attribute
positional arguments. Whereas GCC 8 accepts all C integer types,
Hi!
As mentioned in the PR, x86 (maybe a couple of other targets) isn't an
AUTO_INC_DEC target, it doesn't have REG_INC notes nor wants the generic
code to synthetize any pre/post inc/dec/modify, but does support push/pop
patterns that use those RTL codes.
If unlucky enough, as on the following
Hi!
As mentioned in the PR, while we allow VLAs in some contexts in C++ as
an extension, they aren't standard and the standard requires in those spots
constant expressions, thus __builtin_is_constant_evaluated () needs to be
true if those sizes are indeed constant expressions.
Fixed by calling
Hi!
The following patch adds std::is_constant_evaluated to the library.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
(relies on the previously posted C++ FE patch).
2018-12-11 Jakub Jelinek
P0595R2 - is_constant_evaluated
* include/bits/c++config
Hi!
While working on the libstdc++ patch for P0595R2, I've noticed that while
__builtin_is_constant_evaluated () directly works, when wrapped into
an constexpr inline noexcept function, it in some cases doesn't. The
problem is that the constexpr call cache didn't take
ctx->pretend_const_required
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Most spots in vr-values* and tree-vrp* check if convert rhs1 is SSA_NAME,
> but these 3 spots don't. It can appear if some pass doesn't fold stmts
> after changing them.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
Hi!
Most spots in vr-values* and tree-vrp* check if convert rhs1 is SSA_NAME,
but these 3 spots don't. It can appear if some pass doesn't fold stmts
after changing them.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2018-12-11 Jakub Jelinek
PR
On 11/5/18 10:18 AM, Sam Tebbs wrote:
> On 11/05/2018 07:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Sam Tebbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2018 05:28 PM, Sam Tebbs wrote:
>>>
Hi all,
This patch adds a new target hook called "asm_post_cfi_startproc". This
hook is
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 6:17 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> Let's ask David? (Cc:ed). Strange that no one noticed powerpc64 before;
> titan and rs64 aren't so strange though ;-)
The patch is okay with me. Thanks for catching the renaming and the
processor missing from the list.
Hi Kyrill,
I've tested on armeb-none-eabi with -mslow-flash-data for both
-mfloat-abi=hard and -mfloat-abi=soft. Both show no regression and the
former shows some new PASS.
Regarding the part you are hesitant about, the code was taken from
aarch64_reinterpret_float_as_int in
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 5:45 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:20 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:59 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently GCC inserts ENDBR instruction at entries of all non-static
> > > functions, unless LTO compilation is used.
Dimitar Dimitrov writes:
> On понеделник, 10 декември 2018 г. 11:21:53 EET Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Dimitar Dimitrov writes:
>> > I have tested this fix on x86_64 host, and found no regression in the C
>> > and C++ testsuites. I'm marking this patch as RFC simply because I don't
>> > have
On 12/10/18 5:23 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
the other day I noticed that we weren't getting right the first location
of pr53037-4.C, for a variable, whereas the next one, for a function,
was Ok. Indeed, we were passing a location only to grokfndecl. In other
terms, I found a good empirical
On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 10:35 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 22:47 +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/gcc/c/c-parser.c b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > index 121a91c..652e53c 100644
> > --- a/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > +++ b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> > @@ -6360,41 +6360,54
On 12/10/18 2:52 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
+ if (processing_template_decl && value_dependent_expression_p (expr))
You don't need to check processing_template_decl before
value_dependent_expression_p.
I would lean toward checking for value-dependence in
convert_nontype_argument, which
Hi All,
This patch adds NEON intrinsics and tests for the Armv8.3-a complex
multiplication and add instructions with a rotate along the Argand plane.
The instructions are documented in the ArmARM[1] and the intrinsics
specification
will be published on the Arm website [2].
The Lane versions of
Hi All,
This patch adds NEON intrinsics and tests for the Armv8.3-a complex
multiplication and add instructions with a rotate along the Argand plane.
The instructions are documented in the ArmARM[1] and the intrinsics
specification
will be published on the Arm website [2].
The Lane versions of
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:17:26AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 04:30:11PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > Some of my testing exposed a minor problem in GCC 9's validation
> > of the type of function parameters referred to by attribute
> > positional arguments. Whereas GCC
On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 22:47 +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/gcc/c/c-parser.c b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> index 121a91c..652e53c 100644
> --- a/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> +++ b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
> @@ -6360,41 +6360,54 @@ c_parser_for_statement (c_parser *parser,
> bool ivdep, unsigned short
On 12/10/18 8:48 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
A template-argument for a non-type template-parameter shall be a converted
constant expression. But an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion applied to a volatile
glvalue is not allowed to be part of the evaluation of a constant expression.
So this test should be
On 12/11/18 2:17 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 04:30:11PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Some of my testing exposed a minor problem in GCC 9's validation
of the type of function parameters referred to by attribute
positional arguments. Whereas GCC 8 accepts all C integer types,
Thank you Segher, will work on your suggestions.
Umesh
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 19:23 Segher Boessenkool Hi Umesh,
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:30:48PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> > Please find the attached patch for the subjected issue .
> >
> > Do please let me know your thoughts and
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:39:00 +0200
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 16 August 2018 17:46:43 CEST, Julian Brown
> wrote:
> >On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 21:56:54 +0200
> >Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> >
> >> On 15 August 2018 18:46:37 CEST, Julian Brown
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 13 Aug 2018
On 12/11/2018 02:25 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 3:05 AM Pedro Alves wrote:
>> Ian earlier mentioned that we've wanted to avoid malloc because some
>> programs call the demangler from a signal handler, but it seems like
>> we already do, these functions already aren't
Hello,
The attached patch, provided by Eric Botcazou (thanks!), installs
definitions of RS6000_STARTING_FRAME_OFFSET and STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET
for PowerPC VxWorks, which has STACK_BOUNDARY set to 128
unconditionally.
AFAICS, this is the third OS config file doing this, after Darwin
and AIX. It
On 10.12.18 16:54, Cherry Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:41 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> On 06.12.18 00:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> This libgo patch by Cherry Zhang adds support for precise stack
>>> scanning to the Go runtime. This uses per-function stack maps stored
>>> in the
Thank you Jakub for the information.
Will make a note of it.
Umesh
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 17:58 Jakub Jelinek On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:30:48PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Please find the attached patch for the subjected issue .
> >
> > Do please let me know your thoughts
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 3:05 AM Pedro Alves wrote:
>
> I noticed that the comment on top of __cxa_demangle says:
>
> "If OUTPUT_BUFFER is not long enough, it is expanded using realloc."
>
> and __cxa_demangle calls 'free'.
>
> And d_demangle, seemingly the workhorse for __cxa_demangle says:
>
>
Hi Umesh,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:30:48PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> Please find the attached patch for the subjected issue .
>
> Do please let me know your thoughts and comments on the same .
First of all: do you have a copyright assignment with the FSF?
Second: please don't send
On 2018/12/10 6:02 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
On 2018/12/7 04:57 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote>> ---
a/libgomp/plugin/plugin-nvptx.c
+++ b/libgomp/plugin/plugin-nvptx.c
+struct goacc_asyncqueue *
+GOMP_OFFLOAD_openacc_async_construct (void)
+{
+ struct goacc_asyncqueue *aq
+ =
On 2018/12/7 1:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 06:21:16PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:11:24 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang
wrote:
Hi Jakub,
This part has changes to 'struct goacc_asyncqueue*' arguments to various
memory copying/mapping functions. To lessen
On 12/11/18 1:44 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 9:13 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 06:25:31PM +, Andrew Jenner wrote:
>>> Sorry for the slow response on this, I was on vacation last week.
>>>
>>> On 03/12/2018 21:48, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On 2018/12/7 11:56 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
--- a/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/lib-79.c
+++ b/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/lib-79.c
@@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ main (int argc, char **argv)
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
+ stream = (CUstream)
On 11/12/18 13:28 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:30:48PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
Hi All,
Please find the attached patch for the subjected issue .
Do please let me know your thoughts and comments on the same .
Not a patch review (will defer that to rs6000
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:21:50AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase ICEs since the c_save_expr removal. Unlike other
> spots where we use save_expr and potentially pass that to function ubsan
> calls, in this case we weren't calling c_fully_fold and
>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:30:48PM +0530, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Please find the attached patch for the subjected issue .
>
> Do please let me know your thoughts and comments on the same .
Not a patch review (will defer that to rs6000 maintainers), but
some comments on gcc-patches
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:48:15 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Pierre-Marie de Rodat:
>
> > procedure Split
> > (Date: Time;
> >Year: out Year_Number;
> >Month : out Month_Number;
> >Day : out Day_Number;
> > - Seconds : out Day_Duration);
> > +
Hi All,
Please find the attached patch for the subjected issue .
Do please let me know your thoughts and comments on the same .
Thank you
~Umesh
pr84762.patch
Description: Binary data
* Pierre-Marie de Rodat:
> procedure Split
> (Date: Time;
>Year: out Year_Number;
>Month : out Month_Number;
>Day : out Day_Number;
> - Seconds : out Day_Duration);
> + Seconds : out Day_Duration)
> + with
> + Global => null;
Is
This patch improves the handling of an improper declaaration of aspect
First for a GNAT-defined iterable type,
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11 Ed Schonberg
gcc/ada/
* sem_util.adb (Get_Actual_Subtype): Function can return type
mark.
Routines in Ada.Real_Time are already annotated with Global => null
contracts to suppress spurious warnings from the flow analysis in
GNATprove. This patch adds such contracts to Ada.Calendar. No change in
runtime behavior expected.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11
While ignored ghost code is not compiled into the executable, it may
lead to compilation errors when it makes use of language features
requiring runtime support that is not available in the available runtime
library. These errors are spurious, as the executable will never call
in these runtime
The following patch modifies the checks related to pragma
Thread_Local_Storage to correct a confusion in semantics which led to
spurious errors.
-- Source --
-- pack.ads
package Pack is
type Arr is array (1 .. 5) of Boolean;
type Arr_With_Default is array (1 ..
When a named number is used in Global/Depends contracts as global item,
the error message could be confusing to users new to Ada. Now the
message explains that named numbers are not objects.
For instance on the following illegal code snippet:
$ gcc -c bad_global.ads
1. package
This patch updates validity checks to prevent the validation of an
by-reference formal parameter because the parameter is not being read in
the process.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11 Hristian Kirtchev
gcc/ada/
* checks.adb: Add with and use clauses for
This patch enures that the subtype of an aggregate has the Has_Predicate
flag properly set if the array component has a predicate, including the
case the predicate function for the component has not been constructed
yet.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11 Ed Schonberg
This fixes a crash in gigi on a pathological packed array type, whose
component type is a record type without representation clause or packing
but with a clause that bumps its size to a non-multiple value of the
storage unit. In this case, the front-end fails to detect that calls
to the packing
This patch fixes a bug where if a library unit is compiled with -gnatQ,
and that library unit is an ignored Ghost unit, then gnatbind silently
fails.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11 Bob Duff
gcc/ada/
* gnat1drv.adb (gnat1drv): Pass the correct Object
This patch adds a missing predicate check on the initial value of an
object whose declaration initializes the object with an aggregate. Such
a declaration is marked No_Initialization to prevent a call to a default
initialization procedure, but the check is needed on the value of the
aggregate.
The following patch corrects the freezing of entities to properly
preserve all freeze nodes in case of recursive freezing when the context
is ignored Ghost, and the construct frozen is non-Ghost.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11 Hristian Kirtchev
gcc/ada/
This patch updates freezing to ensure that freeze nodes are inserted
into the tree when the entity being frozen is non-Ghost, and the context
is an ignored Ghost spec expression.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11 Hristian Kirtchev
gcc/ada/
* exp_util.adb
This patch fixes a crash on a function that builds its limited result in
place. Previously this was handled properly only if the function was a
child unit.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11 Ed Schonberg
gcc/ada/
* sem_ch3.adb (Build_Itype_Reference):
Those tools need a dedicated repository as they're VxWorks specific and
not related with the Ada front-end.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11 Jerome Lambourg
gcc/ada/
* vxaddr2line.adb, vxlink-bind.adb, vxlink-bind.ads,
vxlink-link.adb,
This ensures that the compiler fully implements the C.6(19) clause of
the Ada Reference Manual and gives a warning when the clause does change
the passing mechanism of the affected parameter.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11 Eric Botcazou
gcc/ada/
* fe.h
SPARK RM has been updated to support access types in SPARK. Part of this
support is that now SPARK RM 3.1 lists access types as having full
default initialization. Now updated.
There is no impact on compilation.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11 Yannick Moy
When a compilation switch is wrongly passed to GNATprove without the
leading hyphen, this patch issues a clear error message instead of the
obscure 'usage' message previously displayed.
There is no impact on compilation.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-12-11 Yannick Moy
The intuition behind the Is_Subprogram_Stub_Without_Prior_Declaration
utility routine is to detect stubs that act as subprogram declarations
and False on stubs that act as completions. This behaviour is now fixed
for stubs that correspond to generic subprogram declarations.
This patch affects a
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
