https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
On 05/12/2015 02:16 PM, Marat Zakirov wrote:
On 04/07/2015 03:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
How are the automatic misaligned variables different from say heap
allocated ones, or global vars etc.?
No difference you are right Jakub. Shadow memory initialization for
heap values and globals of
On 05/20/2015 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:57:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
- the you can add/subtract integral values still opens you up to
language lawyers claiming (char *)ptr - (intptr_t)ptr preserving the
dependency, which it clearly doesn't. But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 May 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66209
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||64928
---
Hi!
On Tue, 19 May 2015 09:24:51 +0200, Tom de Vries tom_devr...@mentor.com wrote:
On 18-05-15 17:31, Tom de Vries wrote:
In ran into this bootstrap failure with branch gomp-4_0-branch:
...
src/gcc-gomp-4_0-branch/gcc/omp-low.c:2897:1: error: 'omp_context*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65961
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It might be mitigated for the testcase in question but the underlying problem
didn't get fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65961
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
As of trunk 20150520, this bug looks fixed to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:32:20AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, 20 May 2015 10:43:27 +0200, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:23:21AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
I see that some checking is also being done gcc/omp-low.c:scan_omp_for:
»gang,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #16 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15)
Thanks for a quick look!
However, I think that the emit_move_insn could also be a source of hidden
problems. For instance, if the
The following patch is an effort to use the macro where appropriate
in c/ and c-family/ directories. No functional changes intended.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2015-05-20 Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com
* c-pragma.c: Use VAR_OR_FUNCTION_DECL_P throughout.
On 20/05/15 11:17 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 04/05/15 22:31 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is the patch to demangle symbols in debug messages. I have
also simplify code in formatter.h.
Here is an example of assertion message:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #15 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com ---
I'm going to surround calls to gcc_[checking_]assert (in gcc/hash-table.*) with
#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING {--disable-checking is in my config already}. Let's see
where it lands.
Currently, AArch64 don't differentiate -fpic and -fPIC.
For -mcmodel=small, both allow 4G GOT table size, then we always need
two instructions to address GOT entry.
This patch implements -fpic for -mcmodel=small which allow 32K GOT table
size, smaller than -fPIC, but then we can use one
On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni
prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'.
On second thoughts, should we reject expansion of operator-list _only_
if it's mixed with 'for' ?
We could define multiple operator-lists in
Hi,
On Tue, 19 May 2015, Richard Henderson wrote:
It is. The relaxation that HJ is working on requires that the reads
from the got not be hoisted. I'm not especially convinced that what
he's working on is a win.
With LTO, the compiler can do the same job that he's attempting in the
On 04/05/15 22:31 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is the patch to demangle symbols in debug messages. I have
also simplify code in formatter.h.
Here is an example of assertion message:
/home/fdt/dev/gcc/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/debug/functions.h:213:
Hi,
This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'.
OK for trunk after bootstrap+testing ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
2015-05-20 Prathamesh Kulkarni prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org
* genmatch.c (parser::record_operlist): Remove.
(parser::oper_lists_set): Likewise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #26 from Chung-Kil Hur gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr ---
Thanks for the detailed explanations.
The C standard only guarantees that you can convert a pointer to uintptr_t
and back, it doesn't guarantee that you can convert a modified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66212
--- Comment #1 from Andri Yngvason andri.yngvason at marel dot com ---
I've now compiled the same toolchain for i686 and I have the same issue there,
so I assume that I'm doing something wrong. It's hard to pin down what I'm
doing wrong though.
Similar to the rename from SYMBOL_SMALL_TPREL to SYMBOL_TLSLE, this
patch rename the rtl pattern name.
ok for trunk?
2015-05-19 Jiong Wang jiong.w...@arm.com
gcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (tlsle_small): Rename to tlsle.
(tlsle_small_mode): Rename to tlsle_mode.
*
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
Hi,
This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'.
OK for trunk after bootstrap+testing ?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 May 2015, dougmencken at gmail dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #14 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
Bug ID: 66215
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong after label NOP
emission for -mhotpatch
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66213
Bug ID: 66213
Summary: unsigned char value range can be greater than sizeof
unsigned char
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
gcc/
* config/mips/mips.h (micromips_globals): Declare.
OK, thanks.
Matthew
Committed as r223438.
Robert
No functional changes.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, applying to trunk.
2015-05-20 Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com
* cfgexpand.c (expand_debug_expr): Use UNARY_CLASS_P.
* c-omp.c (check_omp_for_incr_expr): Use BINARY_CLASS_P.
diff --git gcc/c-family/c-omp.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.1.0
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #27 from Chung-Kil Hur gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr ---
(In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #26)
Thanks for the detailed explanations.
The C standard only guarantees that you can convert a pointer to uintptr_t
and back, it
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni
prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'.
On second thoughts, should we reject expansion of operator-list _only_
if it's mixed with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35575
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35575action=edit
Lightweight __throw_out_of_range_fmt for non-verbose builds
This is what I had in
Add new unspec name UNSPEC_TLSLE, use it for all tlsle pattern.
ok for trunk?
2015-05-19 Jiong Wang jiong.w...@arm.com
gcc/
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (UNSPEC_TLSLE): New enumeration.
(tlsle): Use new unspec name.
(tlsle_mode): Ditto.
--
Regards,
Jiong
diff --git
Hi all,
This patch replaces 15, 16, 7 and 8 in aarch64_class_max_nregs with the macro
that they represent.
This should make the logic of that function easier to understand.
Bootstrapped and tested on aarch64.
Applying as obvious.
2015-05-20 Kyrylo Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com
*
Hi Paul,
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:41:48AM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:10:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
So I think you're better off just saying that operations designed
On 20 May 2015 at 17:01, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni
prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
This patch rejects expanding operator-list to implicit 'for'.
On second thoughts, should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #14 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com ---
sizeof(hashval_t) = 4, CHAR_BIT = 8
Just checked it manually. Built with patch subset, genmatch problem is here
again. It isn't related to changes in hash_table_mod1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66212
Bug ID: 66212
Summary: Exception handling broken on powerpc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #16 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
After, = 32 triggers assert (-- failure).
This is backwards. The failure case is sizeof (hashval_t) * CHAR_BIT 32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66213
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Use DECL_P where appropriate. No functional changes.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, applying to trunk.
2015-05-20 Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com
* gimple-fold.c (fold_const_aggregate_ref_1): Use DECL_P.
* gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr_rhs): Likewise.
*
Use COMPARISON_CLASS_P where appropriate. No functional changes.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, applying to trunk.
2015-05-20 Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com
* expr.c (expand_cond_expr_using_cmove): Use COMPARISON_CLASS_P.
* gimple-expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #17 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Thanks a lot guys for working on this! I'm really glad you're doing this :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Bug ID: 66214
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE verify_type failed with -O0 -g via
gen_type_die_with_usage's dwarf2out.c:20250
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
For AArch64, TLS local-exec mode for all memory model (tiny/small/large)
is actually the same.
TLS LE Instruction generation depends on how big tls section is instead
of the memory model used.
The four instruction sequences we can implement based on relocations
provided:
sequence 1
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66213
--- Comment #2 from zh__ z.hege...@t-systems.com ---
Yep, sorry. My bad.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #27 from Chung-Kil Hur gil.hur at sf dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38265
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
To implement OpenACC vector-single mode, we need to ensure that only one
thread out of the group representing a worker executes. The others skip
computations but follow along the CFG, so the results of conditional
branch decisions must be broadcast to them.
The patch below adds a new builtin
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:03:00AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Jens Maurer jens.mau...@gmx.net wrote:
On 05/20/2015 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:57:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
- the you can add/subtract integral
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:34:10AM +0200, Jens Maurer wrote:
On 05/20/2015 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:57:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
- the you can add/subtract integral values still opens you up to
language lawyers claiming (char *)ptr -
On 5/20/2015 3:27 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mark maule mark.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
I have a loop which hangs when compiled with -O2, but runs fine when
compiled with -O1. Not sure what information is required to get an answer,
so starting with the full src
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #14)
I think the check operands[1] / operands[2] check should go into the
preparation statement. operands[0] is dying after this peephole, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
Markus Eisenmann meisenmann@fh-salzburg.ac.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:stevenb@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 7:21 PM
Not OK.
This will break in move_invariants() when it looks at REGNO (inv-reg).
Indeed. I'm even surprised all tests passed. Ok I will just prevent moving
in such a case. I'm running the tests now and
Hi!
On Wed, 20 May 2015 10:43:27 +0200, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:23:21AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
I see that some checking is also being done gcc/omp-low.c:scan_omp_for:
»gang, worker and vector may occur only once in a loop nest«, and »gang,
On 19 May 11:22, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 05/18/2015 08:13 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-05-06 17:18 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
Hi Vladimir,
Could you please comment on this?
Ilya, I think that the idea is worth to try but results might be
mixed. It is hard to
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mark maule mark.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
I have a loop which hangs when compiled with -O2, but runs fine when
compiled with -O1. Not sure what information is required to get an answer,
so starting with the full src code. I have not attempted to reduce to a
Hi,
This patch removes redundant gimple_build_nop calls from tree-chkp.c.
MPX-bootstrapped and regtested for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Applied to trunk.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
2015-05-20 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com
* tree-chkp.c (chkp_maybe_copy_and_register_bounds): Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
--- Comment #10 from Gerhard Steinmetz gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de
---
Perhaps it's better to make one factor larger.
Maybe the following will help.
$ cat zz1.f90
program p
real :: z(2)
z = 10 + [real :: 1, 2]
This is a new version of the patch submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00663.html
but handling (some) escape sequences.
I could not figure out a way to re-use the code from libcpp for this,
thus I implemented a simple function that given a string and offset in
bytes,
Hi!
On Fri, 15 May 2015 11:10:21 -0700, Cesar Philippidis ce...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
This patch teaches the c and c++ front ends to error on invalid and
conflicting acc loop clauses. E.g., an acc loop cannot have 'gang seq'
and the worker and vector clauses inside parallel regions cannot
Hi Mikael,
when I got you right on IRC, then you proposed this change about the pointer
attribute:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
index 6d565ae..545f778 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
@@ -5361,6 +5361,7 @@ gfc_trans_allocate
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:23:21AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
+ if (gwv auto_clause)
+c_parser_error (parser, incompatible use of clause %auto%);
+ else if (gwv seq_clause)
+c_parser_error (parser, incompatible use of clause %seq%);
+ else if (auto_clause seq_clause)
+
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Richard,
this is my attempt to make sense of TYPE_CANONICAL at LTO. My undrestanding
is
that gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p needs to return true for all pairs of
types that are considered compatible across compilation unit for any of
languages
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Jens Maurer jens.mau...@gmx.net wrote:
On 05/20/2015 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:57:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
- the you can add/subtract integral values still opens you up to
language lawyers claiming (char *)ptr -
On 03/05/15 22:19 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 30/04/2015 13:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 30/04/15 10:40 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 27/04/2015 13:55, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
(Alternatively, could the same simplification be made for
__miter_base? Do we need _Miter_base or just two
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:01:21PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
The following patch is an effort to use the macro where appropriate
in c/ and c-family/ directories. No functional changes intended.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2015-05-20 Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #24)
(In reply to schwab from comment #23)
gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org writes:
Since hello is not
Hi,
As we know, GCC is too conservative when checking overflow behavior in SCEV
and loop related optimizers. Result is some variable can't be recognized as
scalar evolution and thus optimizations are missed. To be specific,
optimizers like ivopts and vectorizer are affected.
This issue is more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
--- Comment #16 from Andri Yngvason andri.yngvason at marel dot com ---
Sorry, Joseph, I wasn't sure if this issue was fixed or not since the status is
NEW. I'll report a new issue.
We could add -mflip-micromips complementing -mflip-mips16 and use
that for testing too. Chances are it'd reveal further issues.
Looking at how
-mflip-mips16 has been implemented it does not appear to me adding
-mflip-micromips would be a lot of effort.
I'm in favour of adding such a
On 18 May 2015 at 20:25, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On May 18, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Alan Lawrence alan.lawre...@arm.com wrote:
Simulators such as qemu report the presence of fork (it's in glibc) but
generally do not support synchronization primitives between threads, so any
tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So we fold (and did fold before) 1 0 ? x : y to (float) x (thus an rvalue).
Then later we call ocp_convert on that requesting a conversion to int which
does
810
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 19 May 2015 at 14:34, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 18 May 2015 at 20:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni
prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 May 2015 at 14:12, Richard Biener
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Aditya K hiradi...@msn.com wrote:
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 11:33:16 +0200
Subject: Re: Refactor gimple_expr_type
From: richard.guent...@gmail.com
To: hiradi...@msn.com
CC: tbsau...@tbsaunde.org; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
I bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux the patch bellow. If it will work
for Firefox and Chrome I will go ahead with it at least temporarily.
Really? This introduced a LTO failure in the gnat.dg testsuite:
FAIL: gnat.dg/lto8.adb (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gnat.dg/lto8.adb (test for
On 05/20/2015 01:04 PM, mark maule wrote:
Is this one of those areas where if
there's a bug in the code all bets are off and your mileage may vary?
Yes. Do not access beyond the end of an array: daemons may fly out
of your nose. [1]
Andrew.
[1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52742
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66218
Bug ID: 66218
Summary: [c++-concepts] inconsistent deduction for ‘auto’
with a partial-concept-id in a deduction constraint
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62216
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
On 05/20/2015 01:19 AM, Christian Bruel wrote:
Hi,
Could a global reviewer have a look at the c-family part ?, this is
blocking for the TARGET_CPU_CPP_BUILTINS macro redefinition in C (arm
but probably others)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg01185.html
The c-family bits are OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
Bug ID: 66220
Summary: -Wmisleading-indentation false/inconsistent warning
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:11:52 +0200
Subject: Re: Refactor gimple_expr_type
From: richard.guent...@gmail.com
To: hiradi...@msn.com
CC: tbsau...@tbsaunde.org; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Aditya K hiradi...@msn.com
On 05/20/2015 02:15 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
This is a new version of the patch submitted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00663.html
but handling (some) escape sequences.
I could not figure out a way to re-use the code from libcpp for this,
thus I implemented a
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:01:44PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
To implement OpenACC vector-single mode, we need to ensure that only one
thread out of the group representing a worker executes. The others skip
computations but follow along the CFG, so the results of conditional branch
decisions
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 20 May 2015 at 17:01, Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On 20 May 2015 at 16:17, Prathamesh Kulkarni
prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
This patch rejects expanding
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Lynn A. Boger
labo...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 05/19/2015 07:52 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:40:15AM -0500, Lynn A. Boger wrote:
Questions on the use of the options for split stack:
- The way this is implemented, split stack is
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 02:05:59PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch changes rs6000_stack_info to keep save areas offsets even
when not used. I need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Additionally, what about the following code?
char *x = y ? z : z;
Does that extend a dependency chain from z to x? If so, I can imagine a
CPU breaking that in practice.
I am not seeing this. I would expect the compiler to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
Le 20/05/2015 10:24, Andre Vehreschild a écrit :
Hi Mikael,
when I got you right on IRC, then you proposed this change about the pointer
attribute:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
index 6d565ae..545f778 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
+++
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:02:40AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 02:05:59PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch changes
On 05/19/2015 07:52 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:40:15AM -0500, Lynn A. Boger wrote:
Questions on the use of the options for split stack:
- The way this is implemented, split stack is generated if the
target platform supports split stack, on ppc64/ppc64le as well
as on
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:47:45PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:41:48AM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:10:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
1 - 100 of 279 matches
Mail list logo
