Matt Davis mattdav...@gmail.com writes:
As some of you might know, I have been researching and working on a
region-based
memory management plugin for GCC. My target is specifically the Go language.
With that said, I have been making a fair amount of progress. More recently,
I
have been
Art Haas ah...@impactweather.com writes:
I've had no success lately getting GCC to bootstrap successfully. My
last successful bootstrap was on September 6; my builds on September
7 through today all end with a comparison failure. Here's the end
of my build log:
gmake[2]: Entering directory
On 09/28/2011 02:14 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
This leads to unpleasant code. The machine can access all RAM locations by
direct addressing. However, the resulting code is:
foo:
ldi r24,lo8(-86) ; 6 *movqi/2[length = 1]
ldi r30,lo8(-64) ; 34
Paolo Bonzini schrieb:
On 09/28/2011 02:14 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
This leads to unpleasant code. The machine can access all RAM
locations by
direct addressing. However, the resulting code is:
foo:
ldi r24,lo8(-86) ; 6*movqi/2[length = 1]
ldi r30,lo8(-64) ; 34
I've been working on GCC's C++11 atomic implementation. In discussions
with Lawrence, I've recently discovered a fundamental change in what
libstdc++-v3 is likely to provide as far as an implementation.
Previously, header files provided a choice between a locked or a
lock-free implementation,
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20110930 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20110930/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
I'm planning to support some new instructions found in recent sparc
cpus, specifically VIS 3.0 adds a series of X and halve
floating-point instructions where X is one of add or subtract.
There are variants which negate the result as well.
They operate similar to FMA in that all the operations
Hi,
I was having a look to this long standing, and unconfirmed, PR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36778
and the rationale makes sense to me. What do you think, shall we have
-Wfatal-warnings too, together with -Wfatal-errors?
AFAICS, the patch would be rather trivial,
Hi,
I was having a look to this long standing, and unconfirmed, PR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36778
and the rationale makes sense to me. What do you think, shall we have
-Wfatal-warnings too, together with -Wfatal-errors?
AFAICS, the patch would be rather
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
Bug #: 50571
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Undesirable folding in m
constrained asm operands
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
06:03:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 25387
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25387
gcc47-pr50571.patch
Fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50570
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
07:00:40 UTC ---
So Joseph, Jason, what is the difference between Wmissing-prototypes and
Wmissing-declarations?
Can't you just make one a synonym for the other and make
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38980
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
08:04:38 UTC ---
C++ doesn't have prototypes, it has declarations and definitions, so the
different names makes sense.
I'm not sure what Do so even if the definition itself
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50572
Bug #: 50572
Summary: unstable performance on Atom due to loop alignment
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
Bug #: 50573
Summary: configure lists --with-gnu-ld twice
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
--- Comment #1 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-30 09:02:18 UTC ---
btw.. same thing with java configury and three(!) times in gcc/configure:
$ grep -c ^[[:space:]]*\-\-with-gnu-ld */configure | egrep -v (0|1)$
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50564
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
09:11:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I'll have a look in the next few days.
One way could be to move the EXPR_ASSIGN: part of trans-stmt.c's
gfc_trans_forall_1 into a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2011-09-30 09:23:09
UTC ---
The first one is coming from libtool.m4 (LT_PATH_LD), the second one from
config/lib-ld.m4 (AC_LIB_PROG_LD, imported from gettext, with some quoting
problems).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
Bug #: 50574
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/vector-compare-1.c FAILs on
SPARC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50575
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50575
Bug #: 50575
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/vector-compare-2.c FAILs on
Solaris 8/9 x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49662
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50099
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-30 09:36:47 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Fri Sep 30 09:36:43 2011
New Revision: 179378
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179378
Log:
Fix PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-09-30
09:37:51 UTC ---
It also fails on powerpc-apple-darwin9 (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-09/msg03110.html) and
s390x-ibm-linux-* (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50052
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa*-*-* |hppa*-*-*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-30
09:44:50 UTC ---
By the way, the patch is approved thus we don't need further feedback to commi
it and fix this annoying issue. I'll just do it later today, if nobody
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49662
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-09-30 09:53:26 UTC ---
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49662
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19599
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
09:57:06 UTC ---
The patch as applied today causes some bootstrap failures and I'm investigating
that.
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-30
09:58:50 UTC ---
Thus doesn'l look like a library proper issue, right? Build system? Please add
somebody in CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50575
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
10:06:48 UTC ---
Please add proper options/prune for your target to avoid these ABI messages.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #6 from dodji at seketeli dot org dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-09-30 10:26:29 UTC ---
paolo.carlini at oracle dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org a écrit:
Out of curiosity, does the posted patch fix at once *all* the issues mentioned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-30
10:33:15 UTC ---
Great. By the way, I think I didn't see any comment, that's why I asked ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2011-09-30 10:41:32
UTC ---
I'd just close it as wontfix. Perhaps we can fix the quoting problems, and
hope that autoconf removes duplicates another day.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50576
Bug #: 50576
Summary: Recent vector comparison changes cause an ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50576
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50576
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Gretton-Dann mgretton at sourceware dot org
2011-09-30 10:58:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
is sizeof(long long) == sizeof (double)?
Yes - sizeof(long long) and sizeof(double) are both 8.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50577
Bug #: 50577
Summary: IPA-PTA context insensitivity confuses pure-const
analysis
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
--- Comment #8 from dodji at seketeli dot org dodji at seketeli dot org
2011-09-30 11:41:14 UTC ---
The comment was posted in another month:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00536.html
Another hint at why we need a better
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50578
Bug #: 50578
Summary: Rethrow core dump if static link to libstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50578
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-09-30 12:25:53 UTC ---
I find the following trees when error is hit for the first time:
(gdb) p type
$1 = (tree) 0xfba11140
(gdb) pt
vector_type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
12:47:32 UTC ---
FYI
Index: tree-cfg.c
===
--- tree-cfg.c (revision 179378)
+++ tree-cfg.c (working
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-09-30 12:52:09 UTC ---
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
12:46:06 UTC ---
[...]
Ok, that makes sense.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
13:33:18 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Sep 30 13:33:14 2011
New Revision: 179382
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179382
Log:
2011-09-30 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50579
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50579
Bug #: 50579
Summary: [4.7 regression] gcc.target/mips/20020620-1.c FAILs on
IRIX 6.5
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50580
Bug #: 50580
Summary: gcc.target/mips/interrupt_handler-[23].c FAIL on IRIX
6.5
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50580
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-09-30 14:16:40 UTC ---
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
I'm not sure what Do so even if the definition itself provides a prototype.
means
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
14:29:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
I'm not sure what Do so even if the definition itself provides a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
14:30:56 UTC ---
Reassociation isn't doing anything untoward here that raises register pressure.
The problem must be occurring downstream. Likely the scheduler is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50575
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-09-30 14:39:28 UTC ---
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
10:06:48 UTC ---
Please add proper options/prune
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50038
tocarip.intel at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tocarip.intel at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
15:00:18 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 30 15:00:12 2011
New Revision: 179388
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179388
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
15:01:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 30 15:01:27 2011
New Revision: 179389
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179389
Log:
PR inline-asm/50571
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50566
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
15:15:32 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Sep 30 15:15:23 2011
New Revision: 179391
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179391
Log:
PR target/50566
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50581
Bug #: 50581
Summary: stdarg doesn't support array types
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50582
Bug #: 50582
Summary: Instruct GCC that added_clobbers_hard_reg_p shouldn't
consider a specific register
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568
--- Comment #32 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
15:48:56 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Sep 30 15:48:51 2011
New Revision: 179395
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179395
Log:
Use 64bit integer for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50582
--- Comment #1 from Paulo J. Matos Paulo.Matos at csr dot com 2011-09-30
15:54:25 UTC ---
I have implemented a fix to this using a new macro: NOT_REALLY_HARD_REGS which
is an array of FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER length, with a 1 in position x if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50582
--- Comment #2 from Paulo J. Matos Paulo.Matos at csr dot com 2011-09-30
15:57:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 25389
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25389
Patch for GCC 4.6.1 implementing suggested enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-09-30 16:26:46
UTC ---
Maybe Honza has ideas about this...
That patch affect inlining decisions, but should not affect correctness. So it
seems that the bug whatever it is just gone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
Bug #: 50583
Summary: Many __sync_XXX builtin functions are incorrect
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-09-30 16:57:14
UTC ---
We have 2 choices:
1. Update document of
`TYPE __sync_fetch_and_add (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)'
`TYPE __sync_fetch_and_sub (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)'
`TYPE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584
Bug #: 50584
Summary: No warning for passing small array to C99 static array
declarator
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473
--- Comment #14 from Janis Johnson janis at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
17:33:48 UTC ---
Author: janis
Date: Fri Sep 30 17:33:41 2011
New Revision: 179399
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179399
Log:
gcc/cp
PR c++/44473
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
18:14:38 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Sep 30 18:14:33 2011
New Revision: 179402
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179402
Log:
PR inline-asm/50571
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-09-30 18:37:42
UTC ---
The same problem with
`TYPE __sync_add_and_fetch (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)'
`TYPE __sync_sub_and_fetch (TYPE *ptr, TYPE value, ...)'
`TYPE __sync_or_and_fetch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-09-30 18:47:21
UTC ---
I guess it is OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50581
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-09-30 19:41:17 UTC ---
There is no possible valid use of passing arrays to va_arg.
In C99, it is never possible for an array to be passed by value to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-30
20:18:59 UTC ---
Well, the original issue isn't fully fixed. If the gimplifier decides to split
the conditions into multiple basic blocks, i.e. if it isn't
tmp1 = a == 1;
tmp2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-30
20:25:14 UTC ---
I see... thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50529
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-30 20:47:17 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Sep 30 20:47:12 2011
New Revision: 179403
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=179403
Log:
2011-09-30
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50529
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.6.2
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38980
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-30
21:15:16 UTC ---
Thanks a lot for the analysis Jakub, seems easy to fix now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
--- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2011-09-30
23:35:29 UTC ---
Can't say I'm a fan of adding such a heavy weight sequence into
an intrinsic. Maybe better to simply leave out the intrinsics that
cannot be implemented
Hi!
GCC on the following testcase warns
warning: use of memory input without lvalue in asm operand 0 is deprecated
[enabled by default]
starting with 4.6, but the source actually had an lvalue there (I don't
think we should forbid for input operands const qualified memory).
On m (1) in the
Hello,
This
+ /* Skip instructions that do not set a register. */
+ if (set !REG_P (SET_DEST (set)))
+ continue;
is ok. Can you also prevent !set insns from having reg_moves? (To be updated
once auto_inc insns will be supported, if they'll deserve reg_moves too.)
I added
Hello,
OK, with the following comments:
Make sure reg_moves are generated for the correct (result, not addr)
register, in generate_reg_moves().
beenbeing (multiple appearances).
Add a note that autoinc_var_is_used_p (rtx def_insn, rtx use_insn)
doesn't need to consider the specific
On Sep 29, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:10:26 +0200
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com wrote:
Hi,
DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least one
extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the system
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 06:41:10PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
which would be invalid to call with foo (a, 32); given the above, but
it isn't obvious to the compiler what value y has. With -DWORKAROUND
the PT decls in (restr) look correct,
I tried to add the 'siam' instruction too but that one is really
difficult because it influences the behavior of every float operation
and I couldnt' find an easy way to express those dependencies. I
tried a few easy approaches but I couldn't reliably keep the compiler
from moving 'siam' across
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
