Hi,
I spotted case ext/headers.cc failed on arm-none-eabi with below information:
In file included from
/home/build/work/gcc-build/arm-none-eabi/armv7-m/libstdc++-v3/include/arm-none-eabi/bits/gthr.h:148:0,
from
The same error occurs on AIX because the tests are run without pthreads.
- David
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I spotted case ext/headers.cc failed on arm-none-eabi with below information:
In file included from
On 7 August 2013 14:10, David Edelsohn wrote:
The same error occurs on AIX because the tests are run without pthreads.
We moved the thread to the libstdc++ list, where I pointed out that
ext/atomicity.h is missing the #pragma GCC system_header that
would suppress the warnings.
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 07:06 +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
Add short_counter,long_counter and before increment counter before each
jump. That way we will know how many short/long jumps were taken.
That's not trivial at all. The jump is a single location (in an asm
goto() statement) that happens
* Steven Rostedt (rost...@goodmis.org) wrote:
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 07:06 +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
Add short_counter,long_counter and before increment counter before each
jump. That way we will know how many short/long jumps were taken.
That's not trivial at all. The jump is a single
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 12:03 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
You might want to try creating a global array of counters (accessible
both from C for printout and assembly for update).
Index the array from assembly using: (2f - 1f)
1:
jmp ...;
2:
And put an atomic increment of
В связи с ликвидацией склада предлагаю телефоны Верту в розницу и оптом.
Скажите, есть ли у Вас интерес в приобретении телефонов?
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 09:37 -0700, Hendrik Greving wrote:
On a machine with ABI ILP32LL64:
(insn 123 122 124 (nil) (set (reg:SI 392)
(mem:SI (plus:SI (reg/v:SI 386)
(reg/v:SI 349)) [0 sec 0 space 0, cmsmode 0 S4 A32])) -1 (nil)
(nil))
If we support legitimate
Yes I guess otherwise you could never produce a complex address like
that. Actually I think I remember that day that I found that C
explicitly leaves it undefined and to the machine.
Thanks
Hendrik
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 09:37
Here is the proposal to add Tag_GNU_X86_EXTERN_BRANCH and
NT_X86_FEATURE_PLT_BND. Any comments?
--
H.J.
---
Intel MPX:
http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/319433-015.pdf
introduces 4 bound registers, which will be used for parameter passing
in x86-64. Bound registers are cleared by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Bug ID: 58098
Summary: wrong return value of normal_distribution::min()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
Bug ID: 58099
Summary: over-zealous Error pointer error checking in gfortran
4.8
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Price daniel.price at monash dot edu ---
Created attachment 30623
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30623action=edit
relevant module
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58095
--- Comment #4 from Siavash Eliasi siavashserver at gmail dot com ---
In the end, here is what I really like GCC to generate for me. Same output as
function (bar) for function (foo) when using GCC with -O3 -march=core2
switches:
#include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Patch was posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00350.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
Andrew McLeod andy at gwentswordclub dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andy at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #4 from Andrew McLeod andy at gwentswordclub dot co.uk ---
Hi Janus,
I think you should read the part of the standard I quoted again? It clearly
specifies that the procedure target may be pure even if the procedure pointer
is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58039
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Your code performs mis-aligned uint16_t stores, which x86 allows. The
vectorizer turns those into larger and still mis-aligned `movdqa' stores, which
x86 does not allow, hence the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58100
Bug ID: 58100
Summary: Spurious DO loop at (1) will be executed zero times
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My first suspicion is that the regression was introduced by this commit:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisionrevision=195133
which was the fix for PR54286.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #7 from Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com ---
I compiled two versions of gcc on my own:
1) gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2
2) gcc-linaro-4.6-2012.12.tar.bz2
For both of them I've used binutils-2.22.tar.bz2
test.o compiled with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Note: it's indeed debatable whether lowest or -infinity is better. For now I'm
going to minimally change our code to use lowest, because we use max the other
side, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46206
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #8 from Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com ---
I found link to bug repository on https://support.linaro.org/home and reported
that issue to Linaro developers:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/1209171
Hope they'll handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch makes the error go away, but (as expected) causes a failure
of proc_ptr_result_8.f90 in the testsuite ...
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57850
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have just verified that the combined patches of comment 7 and 8 regtest
cleanly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58088
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Proposed patch posted at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00361.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56979
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101
Bug ID: 58101
Summary: Wrong out-of-bounds warning under -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #28 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #27)
The patch from Oleg Endo breaks the PowerPC build.
.../gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In function ‘void
rs6000_emit_swdiv(rtx_def*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #28)
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #27)
The patch from Oleg Endo breaks the PowerPC build.
.../gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #30 from Michael Meissner meissner at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 07:22:32PM +, olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo olegendo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58102
Bug ID: 58102
Summary: rejects valid initialization of constexpr object with
mutable member
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54366
Bug 54366 depends on bug 54864, which changed state.
Bug 54864 Summary: Decltype in nested class
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58083
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Ridge zeratul976 at hotmail dot com ---
Since gcc and clang can't both be right, I filed
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16828 .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55434
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101
Luis A Lozano llozano at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55434
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
With C++11 constexpr things are fine. I think this is an indication that before
fiddling with dwarf2out we should make sure const is handled like constexpr, in
C++98 mode too,
;
+class rtl_opt_pass;
+
+namespace gcc {
+ class context;
+}
+
This break Ada.
../../xgcc -B../../ -c -DIN_GCC -DUSE_LIBUNWIND_EXCEPTIONS -O2 -g -W -Wall \
-iquote /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20130807/gcc \
-iquote . -iquote .. -iquote ../.. -iquote
/usr/local/gcc
Hello,
in the discussion about the PR middle-end/57748 it became obvious that the ARM
target architecture should define a value for MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT, because
otherwise the default is simply word aligned, which causes sub-optimal code, at
least for the neon fpu.
This simple patch fixes PR
the option is designed for purpose like this.
That's great, thanks!
Michael
David
On 6 August 2013 20:42, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Corrected two small problems reported by the style checker (The
warnings about the EnumValue for options in stringopt.opt are not
valid).
Hi Jason,
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 17:26:12 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/04/2013 07:45 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
What should I do about the symtab nullptr issue?
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00043.html) Should I
leave the workaround in my patch set as a standalone commit to
Hi,
On 08/07/2013 01:08 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/06/2013 06:14 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Ah I see, thanks. We reject this before and after the patch. Shall I add
this variant to the new testcase?
Sure.
Thanks. Thus after a further round of testing I'm going to apply the below.
Thanks,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 07:07:27PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think, what we could do, is to tweak verify_constant like this:
+ /* This is to handle e.g. the goofy 'case 0 * (1 / 0)' case. */
+ if (flag_sanitize SANITIZE_UNDEFINED
+ TREE_CODE (t) == CALL_EXPR
+
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
I committed this patch that I think should fix this problem.
Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Committed to mainline and 4.8 branch.
2013-08-06 Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com
*
trunk was merged into c++-concepts branch at revision 201560.
I resolved some conflicts in cp caused by recent merges and ongoing work
on trunk.
-- Gaby
Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
PR 58079 is about the do_SUBST assert:
/* Sanity check that we're replacing oldval with a CONST_INT
that is a valid sign-extension for the original mode. */
gcc_assert (INTVAL (newval)
== trunc_int_for_mode
Hi,
I'm applying this mainline and 4_8-branch. Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Paolo.
//
2013-08-07 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
PR libstdc++/58098
* include/bits/random.h (cauchy_distribution::min,
extreme_value_distribution::min,
Revision 201555 breaks boostrap on x86_64-apple-darwin10:
...
Checking multilib configuration for libvtv...
make all-recursive
Making all in testsuite
/bin/sh: line 0: cd: testsuite: No such file or directory
make[4]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
make[2]: ***
The mips*-*-* targets are not building. It looks like the mips reorg
pass (pass_mips_machine_reorg2) in config/mips/mips.c was not converted
and/or was not converted correctly.
Likewise for the SPARC targets, because of the same issue. David, could you
take a quick look? Thanks in advance.
Hi all,
In PR58088 the constant folder goes into an infinite recursion and runs out of
stack space because of two conflicting optimisations:
(X * C1) C2 plays dirty when nested inside an IOR expression like so: ((X *
C1) C2) | C4. One can undo the other leading to an infinite recursion.
Thanks
On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 22:01 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
I'll bootstrap and regtest the change
below and commit it as an obvious fix when that is done.
Everything looked as as expected. Committed.
Peter
I think it's r201508, but in any case, I'm attaching a patch which fixes
this build error. Only very lightly tested so far, with configure
--target=sparc-linux with buildhost x86_64. Was able to build a cc1
and step through the changed code in the debugger, though am getting
cc1: error: no
Hi
This has been around for a while as PR52466 which has
a patch. I have attached the patch. Is it OK to apply to
the open branches?
2013-08-07 Joel Sherrill joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com
* configure.ac (lm32*-*-*): Use SJLJ exceptions.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of
On 07/08/13 01:25, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Most arm target configs now require a 64-bit HW-int. Unfortunately a few of
the older, less commonly used config targets do not. The code in arm.c now
pretty much requires that a 64-bit HW-int is used,
Hi all,
here is a small regression-fix patch for a problem with procedure
pointers and the PURE attribute, for details see the PR. In essence:
gfc_compare_interfaces is asymmetric in the two interfaces it compares
(e.g. regarding the PURE attribute), and we must not symmetrize it by
calling it
On 08/07/2013 06:06 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
I might've misunderstood what you mean. If we drop the hunk above,
then we'll call
error (%q+E is not a constant expression, t);
so, we'll print is not a constant expression no matter what
Yes, that's fine; 1/0 is not a constant expression,
This issue is present in 4.8.1 as well as trunk. However, I think 4.8
uses a different API for double_int, so this patch will need to be reworked
for
4.8.
Actually, I was confused. This patch applies to 4.8.1 as well and fixes the
issue. Passes bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and testing
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 05:24:08PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/05/2013 07:24 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 12:24:32PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
Where are the SAVE_EXPRs coming from? It doesn't seem to me that x
needs to be wrapped in a SAVE_EXPR at all in this case.
Ping?
David
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Hi, GCC/i386 currently has about 73 boolean parameters/knobs (defined
in ix86_tune_features[], indexed by ix86_tune_indices) to perform
micro-arch specific performance tuning. However such settings are
Ping?
David
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Hi, GCC/i386 currently has about 73 boolean parameters/knobs (defined
in ix86_tune_features[], indexed by ix86_tune_indices) to perform
micro-arch specific performance tuning. However such
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 15:25 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Looks good, please install if not already done.
Thanks; I've now committed this to trunk as r201569.
In poking at another set of fails encountered with an i686-elf toolchain
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-08/msg00081.html), I find that complex double
returns and PIC do not play together.
Libgcc's __muldc3 was attempting to return the value in registers, whereas every
caller expected it to
On 13-08-06 3:11 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/06/2013 03:57 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
On 05 Aug 09:55, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/05/2013 08:07 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
Hello Richard, Vlad,
On 31 Jul 06:26, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 07/31/2013 05:02 AM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
On 08/07/2013 03:52 AM, Adam Butcher wrote:
But a cleaner way might be to extend the processing
template declaration state from lambda declarator all the way to the end of the
lambda body. This would match with the scenario that occurs with a standard
in-class member function template
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:24:59AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/07/2013 06:06 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
I might've misunderstood what you mean. If we drop the hunk above,
then we'll call
error (%q+E is not a constant expression, t);
so, we'll print is not a constant expression no
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
Ping?
David
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
Hi, GCC/i386 currently has about 73 boolean parameters/knobs (defined
in ix86_tune_features[], indexed by ix86_tune_indices) to
Ping.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Easwaran Raman era...@google.com wrote:
I have a new patch that supersedes this. The new patch also fixes PR
tree-optimization/57393 and PR tree-optimization/58011. Bootstraps and
no test regression on x86_64/linux. Ok for trunk?
2013-07-31 Easwaran
libvtv was supposed to be automatically disabled for darwin; we are in
the process of trying to figure out why this did not work as it was
supposed to.
In the meantime, if you add --disable-libvtv explicitly to your
configure command, that should turn off the attempts to
configure/build it.
I'll
Fixed the do while formatting. Ok for trunk with this version?
thanks,
David
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
2013-08-02 Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
* config/i386/stringop.def: New file.
* config/i386/stringop.opt: New file.
The usual x86 ports avoid this, because their must_return_in_mem hooks DTRT
already and we never fall into the default case.
So why not do the same for i686-elf?
I am very surprised this hasn't bitten someone before -- I presume this
never worked with i686-elf. It is possible this'll change
As requested, here is the patch to announce the vtable verification
feature on the main gcc.gnu.org web page. Is this ok to commit?
-- Caroline Tice
cmt...@google.com
wwwdocs.patch
Description: Binary data
hi Caroline,
A (very) quick look suggests that only *) results in a return of UNSUPPORTED
from libvtv/configure.tgt
Do you know if anyone is working on a Darwin port for this lib?
thanks,
Iain
On 7 Aug 2013, at 17:57, Caroline Tice wrote:
libvtv was supposed to be automatically disabled
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 19:15 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
Hello All,
It should be perfectly possible for a plugin argument to contain the
equal sign.
For plugin with scripting or DSL behavior (like MELT, see
http://gcc-melt.org/ for more) it is useful to pass some commands
or
Hello All,
It should be perfectly possible for a plugin argument to contain the
equal sign.
For plugin with scripting or DSL behavior (like MELT, see
http://gcc-melt.org/ for more) it is useful to pass some commands
or expressions to the plugin. For MELT we might want to run
gcc
Having poked further, I find this in the testsuite:
pr11001-strlen-2.c
--begin
register int regvar asm(%eax);
char *
do_copy (char *str)
{
return malloc (strlen (str) + 1);
}
--end
Is that even meaningful? The doc's for a global reg var say:
'Choose a register that is normally saved and
Hi Iain,
Thanks for the pointer (I had noticed this but I appreciate the help!).
I do not know of anyone working on a Darwin port for this at this time.
-- Caroline Tice
cmt...@google.com
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Iain Sandoe i...@codesourcery.com wrote:
hi Caroline,
A (very) quick
ok for google branch.
David
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Dehao Chen de...@google.com wrote:
Patch updated.
http://codereview.appspot.com/12079043
Thanks,
Dehao
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
More to follow.
David
static void
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
Hi,
There is no reason why --eh-frame-hdr can't be used with static
executable on Linux. This patch enables --eh-frame-hdr for static
executable on Linux and adds an exception test for static executable.
Other platforms
A not-yet-reviewed libtool patch is needed for powerpc64le
shared-library support:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2013-06/msg1.html
(See also
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2013-07/msg1.html)
This patch merges that change into the google/gcc-4_8
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhni...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Jan Kratochvil
jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
there should be a new case in:
libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected
Thanks. I updated the patch.
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
I
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Nathan Sidwell nat...@acm.org wrote:
Having poked further, I find this in the testsuite:
pr11001-strlen-2.c
--begin
register int regvar asm(%eax);
char *
do_copy (char *str)
{
return malloc (strlen (str) + 1);
}
--end
Is that even meaningful? The
Greetings,
I've been redirected here from binutils:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2013-08/msg00052.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2013-08/msg00056.html
The following source:
templatetypename T static void f();
void g() { fint(); }
results in _Z1fIiEvv under g++, but in
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this should also be send to the GCC List as libiberty is
officially maintained by GCC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00394.html
Thanks,
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
The Go frontend gave an incorrect missing return error message for a
type switch with a case with multiple types, as in case T1, T2:. This
patch fixes that problem. This patch also changes the missing return
error message to use the same text as the gc compiler, and reports it at
the end of the
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:45:40PM +0200, Oleg Endo wrote:
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 13:25 -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/05/2013 12:32 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
Thanks, committed as rev 201513.
4.8 also has the same problem. The patch applies on 4.8 branch without
problems and make
Hi,
the issue here is that... I'm not sure the bug report is valid ;)
Seriously, *if* we think it is, must be fixable with a moderate effort.
Here Jason fixed the closely related c++/53721:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg01445.html
and tweaking a bit more the check would
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
