On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> Hi Diego,
>
> I noticed this patch that adds support for improved -Wshadow-related options:
>
> [google] Add two new -Wshadow warnings (issue4452058)
>https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg02317.html
>https://codereview.app
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I'm not a good choice to be the maintainer of a perl script.
I'm all kinds of sorry about the original choice of scripting
language. I'd just spend a couple of hours re-writing it in python.
The patch looks fine to me.
I'm not really involved in GCC development anymore. I would suggest
that this script should be maintained by whoever's been hacking on it
the most. It's a simple script, so it shouldn't be hard to find a new
maintainer for it.
Diegop.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:19 AM
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> contrib/ChangeLog:
>
> 2015-04-08 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
>
> * mklog ($name, $addr): Fallback to env author settings.
This looks fine, but note that I no longer have approval rights for
patches. Code in contrib/ has lo
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Friday 2015-02-06 16:42, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> As such, I propose to become a write-after-approval maintainer
>> and relinquish all the other maintainer roles I had.
>
> Thanks for your contributions over the years,
MAINTAINERS
index 22a21ee..2cf1cc4 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -31,7 +31,6 @@ Michael Meissner
Jason Merrill
David S. Miller
Joseph Myers
-Diego Novillo
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Bruno Loff wrote:
> 2014-10-19 Bruno Loff
>
> * c-parser.c (c_parser_declspecs): Call invoke_plugin_callbacks after
> processing enum declaration.
Thanks. Committed at r220358.
Diego.
That's
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Bruno Loff wrote:
> Sorry, first contribution ever :) Here is the entry:
>
> 2014-10-19 Bruno Loff
>
> * c-parser.c (c_parser_declspecs): Call invoke_plugin_callbacks after
> processing enum declaration.
This is fine. Thanks.
> The dates are off becaus
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Bruno Loff wrote:
> Something like:
>
> The PLUGIN_FINISH_TYPE callback for gcc plugins is now triggered for
> enum declarations.
>
> ?
ChangeLog entries in GCC are pretty pick as to how they want to be
formatted. See other entries for reference and
https://gcc.gnu
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Bruno Loff wrote:
>
> The issue was first reported by Joachim Wieland to the list
> g...@gcc.gnu.org, on Wed,
> Jan 19, 2011 (Subject: PLUGIN_FINISH_TYPE not executed for enums).
>
>
> A description of the problem/bug and how my patch addresses it.
> --
On 20/11/2014, 16:51 , Tom de Vries wrote:
OK for trunk?
This is fine. Thanks.
Diego.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> 1 - introduce a TYPE_REF tree node, which is effectively just a 'typed' tree
> node, and the TREE_TYPE() field of a TYPE_REF node would point to the type
> node. Any routines which utilize a TYPE node in a tree list would have to
> be modi
On 11/11/14 09:46, Marat Zakirov wrote:
Attached patch make mklog to stop search for changes inside function
once '}' occur.
Ok, to commit?
OK. Thanks.
Diego.
On 11/06/14 03:00, Marat Zakirov wrote:
Ok to commit?
OK. Thanks.
Diego.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Jing Yu wrote:
> 2014-09-18 Jing Yu
> * configure.ac: Add aarch64 to list of targets that support gold.
> * configure: Regenerate.
OK.
Thanks. Diego.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2014.09.28 at 14:57 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>> On 2014.09.28 at 14:36 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> >
>> > Can you use HOST_WIDE_INT_1U for this?
>>
>> Sure. Thanks for the suggestion.
>> (Fix now resembles similar idiom
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> So it's a question of predictability (always do the same or do nothing) vs.
> robustness (do as much as you can given the circumstances). I'm not sure
> which one is better in this case.
I think it's fine the way it is now. Thanks for the pa
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
>
> On 08/04/2014 12:14 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>> On 04-08-14 08:45, Yury Gribov wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks! My 2 (actually 4) cents below.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Yuri,
>>
>> thanks for the review.
>>
>>> > +if ($#ARGV == 1 && ("$ARGV[0]" eq "-i" || "$ARG
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Current mklog works only if run from GCC top-level folder. The patch allows
> running from arbitrary directory.
>
> I've used Linux directory separators which is probably ok because script
> already expects Linux environment (dirnam
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
> Just to document that it's passed directly on to the linker.
>
> OK? Wording changes?
>
> -eric
>
> 2014-07-15 Eric Christopher
>
> * doc/invoke.texi (Link Options): Document -z option.
>
> Index: gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> =
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> * c-family/c-common.h (get_dump_info): Declare.
> * c-family/c-gimplify.c (c_genericize): Use saved dump files.
> * c-family/c-opts.c (c_common_parse_file): Begin and end dumps
> once around parsing invocatio
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>> >+# In any case if we got the diff on stdin then write the ChangeLog to
>> >stdout.
>>
>> Hm, this is breaks semantics: you only dump CL instead of CL+diff just
>> because diff comes from stdin. Perhaps we could append contents of
>> @di
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:11 PM, wrote:
> 2014-04-28 Trevor Saunders
>
> * mklog: if in a git checkout try to get name and email from git.
> ---
> contrib/mklog | 14 ++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/contrib/mklog b/contrib/mklog
> index fb489b0..5f5
OK with:
+Pragmas registered with @code{c_register_pragma_with_expansion} or
+@code{c_register_pragma_with_expansion_and_data} are supporting
+preprocessor expansions. For an example of using such a pragma:
s/are supporting/support/
s/For an example of using such a pragma/For example/
Diego.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 11:15 +0100, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>> I am pinging again this documentation patch
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00074.html
>> (pinged at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01002.h
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> could somebody please shed some light on how this is done? It's nice that
> everybody has this kind of testing, but the only bit in the gcc sources itself
> seems to be a bit bit-rot and incomplete (contrib/test_installed).
Our case is sim
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> If the presence of the build
> tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is
> OK.
I would like to discourage that. Testing an already installed GCC for
which no build tree exists is a very useful feature.
Interna
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Brooks Moses wrote:
> The gcc_update file is missing an entry for
> gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md; this patch adds it.
>
> Ok for trunk?
OK.
Diego.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> Ok to commit?
OK. Thanks.
Diego.
The patch is OK. It qualifies as obvious, too. Thanks.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> The mklog script claims to write to stdout, but it actually modifies
> the input file in-place.
>
> OK to commit this change, which also updates the copyright dates?
Apologies for the delay. The patch is OK.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Tatiana Udalova wrote:
> Ping!
>
> Thank you,
> Tatiana Udalova
>
>
> --
>
> Hello,
>
> I have reproduced the problem with mklog mentioned by Jakub:
>
>> In my experience mklog is pretty much useless, e.g. if you
On 20/12/2013, 07:08 , Yury Gribov wrote:
Ultimately, mklog ought to write the ChangeLog itself.
We get rid of that headache, at least.
How about this then? Updated mklog now adds 'New file'/'New
test'/'Remove' when necessary.
I did some tests with unified/context-diffed SVN and git and it w
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> Frankly in my experience Perl with `use warnings' and `use strict' isn't
> that bad. We could just as well massage existing script.
I suppose.
> Got it. Attached new version of script and ChangeLog entry. Will submit
> tomorrow if noone obje
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 04:17 PM, Yury Gribov wrote:
>>> In my experience mklog is pretty much useless, e.g. if you
>>> add a new function, it will list the previous function as being modified
>>> rather than the new one, etc.
>>
>> In my experience it p
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Here's feedback. Install it now :-)
Works for me :) Committed.
Diego.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Why remove ChangeLog files, web pages and comments?
>
> I was going to complain about web pages being removed. :-)
>
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I think it might be worth saying that one class of 'obvious' fix that we
> don't want to go in without prior clearance are bulk white space
> clean-ups. These can be a right-royal pain to deal with if you're in
> the middle of a big re-
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> Why remove ChangeLog files, web pages and comments? Either
> enumerate everything or just enumerate nothing and simply say
> "Obvious fixes can be committed without prior approval."
Thanks, that's much better. I was trying to be more inc
Fixed quotation as per IRC feedback.
Index: htdocs/svnwrite.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/svnwrite.html,v
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -u -d -u -p -r1.29 svnwrite.html
--- htdocs/svnwrite.html24 Sep 2013 18:26:29
New version with a slightly cleaned up wording:
Index: htdocs/svnwrite.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/svnwrite.html,v
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -u -d -u -p -r1.29 svnwrite.html
--- htdocs/svnwrite.html24 Sep 20
[ sent first version in html. apologies for the dup. ]
Based on the recent discussion on the obvious fix policy.
OK to commit?
Index: htdocs/svnwrite.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/svnwrite.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Iyer, Balaji V
wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Eric Botcazou [mailto:ebotca...@adacore.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 12:33 PM
>> To: Iyer, Balaji V
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Diego Novillo;
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> Was Re: [buildrobot] [PATCH] mips: Really remove ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> This patch is obvious and it fixes breakage. Please go ahead and commit it.
>
> Sorry to pick on you here Ste
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> In this case the backedge will be a critical edge, which will be split by
>>> GCC.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> In this case the backedge will be a critical edge, which will be split by GCC.
Right. So, if I split it, I will reach essentially the same
conclusion, I think. The new block will get the original block's
weight, which (in turn) will tran
Thanks, Deaho.
One other thing that I've found on the LLVM implementation (that I'm
not sure happens in GCC): self-referential edges. If a loop consists
of a single-basic block, the back edge will point to itself. I
haven't been able to reproduce it with regular control flow constructs
in GCC.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> This patch removes the zero_edge heuristic during profile propagation.
> The zero_edge heuristic does not seem to be effective in improving
> performance.
>
> Tested:
> Bootstrapped and passed regression test and performance test.
>
> OK for goo
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/21/2013 02:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 11/21/13 11:15, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there anything in particular one needs to do for plugins? I thought I
>>> saw a patch somewhere that changed something in the Makefile, but
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Do our coding standards allow using default arguments:
>
> extern void push_gimplify_context (bool in_ssa = false,
>bool rhs_cond_ok = false);
Yes, as long as they are not expensive to construct (so, PODs most
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:43:57AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> >> Thanks. Committed as rev 205023.
>> >
>> > Nice work, but why did
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:32 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
Thanks. Fixed.
PR 59212
* g++.dg/plugin/selfassign.c: Include stringpool.h
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/plugin/selfassign.c
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/plugin/selfassign.c
inde
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Thanks. Committed as rev 205023.
>
> Nice work, but why did you antedate the entries in the various ChangeLog
Oh, that's because of local commits and holding on to the patch for a
few days. That date is the date of the original local commit
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> OMG, finally a c++ification that _shrinks_ client code instead of
> bloating it.
Not quite. The patch that converted VEC macros removed a non-trivial
amount of client code.
$ git log -p -n1 f1f41a6cdc47d5123dd30ab110cc35c90f8189cb -- $(fin
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your attention. I am attaching a slightly improved patch
>> against trunk svn rev. 305009 (the improvements are removing the spurious
>> diff hunk, and better comments.)
>
>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Hi, as noted in gcc/go/README.gcc, the files in gcc/go/gofrontend are
> actually mirrored from a different repository. Please do not directly
> commit changes to those files. Instead, send the changes to me. I
> will commit them upstrea
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> graphite-sese-to-poly.c needs expr.h to compile. Fixed thusly and checked
> in as revision 205027.
Thanks!
Diego.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> It looks OK to me.
Thanks. Committed as rev 205023.
Ian, the Go front end will need that patch committed now.
Diego.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 05:16 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>>> This patch contains the mechanical side-effects from
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/14/13 15:19, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> A good chunk. I'm doing these FIXMEs in the next sequence of patches,
>> so we won't have them for long. Again, I was going for an orderly
>> transition here.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> This patch contains the mechanical side-effects from
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01663.html
>
> There are rather a lot of "Include tm.h&
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/14/13 13:28, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> Functions in each corresponding .c file got moved to those
>> headers and others that already existed. I wanted to make this
>> patch as mechanical as possible, so I made no
I did not add all headers factored out of tree.h because it is unclear
(and impossible to tell) what plugins need. This adds the one header
used by the plugins in the testsuite.
This will be changing quite dramatically as we progress with the
header refactoring.
2013-11-14 Diego Novillo
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> very possibly, i just haven't gotten to those parts yet. I can change the
> name back to gimple-decl.[ch] or some such thing if you like that better.
As much as I hate to paint name sheds: gimple-val.[ch].
Diego.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 10:26 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>
>>> There needs to be a place which has gimple componentry that is not
>>> related to or require a statement. gimple.h is becoming th
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Put another way: what do you envision that gimple expressions would be.
> For example what would you propose we could do with them?
The only expressions I have in mind are memory references and
aggregates, which can get pretty convoluted.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> 2013-11-11 Basile Starynkevitch
>
> * toplev.c (toplev_main): Move PLUGIN_FINISH invocation before
> diagnostic_finish.
OK.
Diego.
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> /home/jbglaw/repos/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c: In function ‘void
> expand_main_function()’:
> /home/jbglaw/repos/gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:5409:40: error: ‘NAME__MAIN’ was not
> declared in this scope
Apologies for the breakage. I missed this messa
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT is set by default in gimple_build_assign(), by virtue of
> gimple_assign_set_lhs:
>
>> static inline void
>> gimple_assign_set_lhs (gimple gs, tree lhs)
>> {
>> GIMPLE_CHECK (gs, GIMPLE_ASSIGN);
>> gimple_set_op (gs, 0,
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 05:36 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:26:46AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>>
>>> I decided to name the new file gimple-expr.[ch] instead of
>>> gimple-decl This will eventually split into
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/06/13 00:04, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>>> This is the first patch in a series of patches to cleanup tree.h to
>>> reduce the exposure it has all over t
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> This is the first patch in a series of patches to cleanup tree.h to
>> reduce the exposure it has all over the compiler.
>>
>> In this patch, I'm moving function
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> It must've been whitespace then. Your new patch applied just fine.
> I'll be committing shortly.
Committed at r204301.
Diego.
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>> The patch is OK, but it did not completely apply in my tree. Mind
>> sending an updated version (or point me at a git repo I can pull it
>> from).
>
> interesting, I just pulled and rebased it onto r204296 without any manual
> merging. Pat
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:48 PM, wrote:
> From: Trevor Saunders
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch is pretty dull, it just replaces a bunch of things of the form
> vec x;
> x.create (N); // N is a constant
> blah blah
> x.release ();
> by
> stack_vec x;
> blah blah
>
> Of course its even nicer than that in
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:06 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> It's possible to run GCC's sources through Doxygen by setting
> INPUT_FILTER = contrib/filter_gcc_for_doxygen
> within contrib/gcc.doxy and invoking doxygen on the latter file.
>
> The script filters out various preprocessor
On 2013-10-10 14:07 , tsaund...@mozilla.com wrote:
This makes the implementation of stack vectors simpler and easier to use. This
works by
making
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Similar to tree-ssa.h, tree-ssa-loops.h became an aggregator for 3 of the
> tree-ssa-loop* header files. This remedies that situation.
>
> The average .c file required only 1 of the 3 includes from tree-ssa-loop.h.
>
> Bootstraps on x86_6
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-10-21 15:36:49 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Can anyone think of some way that we can use to automatically block
>> inclusions of tree.h from header files? Code review is the only way
>> that comes t
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/21/13 10:52, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> I plan to commit this by tomorrow, unless there are objections.
>
> I can't think of a good reason to even bother waiting :-)
Heh, OK, thanks.
After analyzing all th
ovmem.
(ix86_expand_setmem): Call ix86_expand_set_or_movmem.
+2013-10-21 Diego Novillo
+
+ * asan.c: Include tree.h
+ * bb-reorder.c: Likewise.
+ * cfgcleanup.c: Likewise.
+ * cfgloopmanip.c: Likewise.
+ * data-streamer-in.c: Likewise.
+ * data-str
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:06 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> How is Google going to change its patch commit policies to ensure that
> this does not happen again?
There is nothing to change. Google follows
http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html, like everyone else. Sri just fixed
the oversight and if th
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, regressions test are still running.
> OK?
Sure.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Quoting Diego Novillo :
>
>> No need to mark struct arc_frame_info with GTY. It contains no pointers.
>
>
> That's not quite how it works. machine_function needs GTY. It uses
> arc_frame_info, hence arc_fr
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> The main part of the port (everything but the testsuite) is still waiting
> for review:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00323.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00324.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Yes. Claudiu Zissulescu at Synopsys would in principle be available as
> co-maintainer, but I suppose it is customary to apply for write-after-
> approval status first.
I'm not sure. A question for the SC.
>> SC folks, could you appoint
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> The main part of the port (everything but the testsuite) is still waiting
> for review:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00323.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00324.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
The gimple builder no longer support normal form. The ssa_mode
enum is not needed now.
Committed to trunk.
* gimple.h (enum ssa_mode): Remove.
---
gcc/gimple.h | 9 -
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/gimple.h b/gcc/gimple.h
index 3047ab4..a031c8d 100644
--- a/gcc/
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Thus, this Google-local patch addresses our immediate need in a simple
> way. Ok to commit to google/main and merge to google/gcc-4_8?
OK. This should go in google/integration, actually. google/main can
get it later when it merges from g/
On 2013-09-16 04:19 , Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
Hello all,
I'm pinging the patch (of september 2nd) on
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00036.html
gcc/ChangeLog entry
2013-09-16 Basile Starynkevitch
* gengtype.c (file_rules): Added rule for *.cc files.
(
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I'm pinging again my small patch to accept = inside plugin arguments
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00382.html
OK.
Diego.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 09/19/2013 09:24 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this is of most use to ssa passes that need to construct code
>>> snippets, so I propose we make this ssa specific a
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> I see the benefit in the streamlined asan.c code, but I detest that
> ssa_mode flag. And as long as it supports SSA, I don't think it should be
> in gimple.c.
Yeah, at the time that I introduced it, I had a hard time with the
normal/ssa
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> E.g. today I've noticed you've lost OMP_CLAUSE_LINEAR_NO_COPYIN
>> comment that has been added to tree.h recently, but you haven't
>> actual
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> E.g. today I've noticed you've lost OMP_CLAUSE_LINEAR_NO_COPYIN
> comment that has been added to tree.h recently, but you haven't
> actually moved it into tree-core.h.
Sorry about that. I remember an update conflict, but I thought I had
i
rationale at the thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00300.html
Tested on x86_64.
2013-09-06 Diego Novillo
* Makefile.in (GIMPLE_CORE_H): New.
(GIMPLE_H): Depend on GIMPLE_CORE_H.
(TREE_SSA_ALIAS_H): New. Replace references to tree-ssa-alias.h with
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:54 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> Most of the GCC headerfiles do not include all their required headers but
>> rely on .c files doing that (in the appropriate order). I somehow like
>> that though I cannot explain why ;)
On 2013-08-28 17:15 , Caroline Tice wrote:
# Least ordering for dependencies mean linking w/o libstdc++ for as
# long as the development of libvtv does not absolutely require it.
Index: gcc/doc/install.texi
===
--- gcc/doc/install
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Caroline Tice wrote:
> Ping? Could somebody please review this for me?
Mike already approved this upthread.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:40 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 19:27 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> David Malcolm wrote:
>> >On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 10:09 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Steven Bosscher
>> > wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> What do you do during stage1? Have a collector that never collects?
Yes. That was the pebble in the shoe. The cc1plus built for the
purposes of gengtype does not need to look at a lot of code, so
turning off collection may not be a big
1 - 100 of 1151 matches
Mail list logo
