Re: SafeStack proposal in GCC

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:09:54PM +0200, Volodymyr Kuznetsov wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > On 13/04/16 14:01, Cristina Georgiana Opriceana wrote: > >> I bring to your attention SafeStack, part of a bigger research project > >> - CPI/CPS

[Bug c++/70991] Uninitialized class allowed if it came from self-assignment, or a member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70991 --- Comment #1 from bennet brauer --- Created attachment 38433 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38433=edit two similar test cases in one cpp file

[Bug c++/70991] New: Uninitialized class allowed if it came from self-assignment, or a member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70991 Bug ID: 70991 Summary: Uninitialized class allowed if it came from self-assignment, or a member function Product: gcc Version: 5.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

Re: Fix for PR68159 in Libiberty Demangler (6)

Hi Ian, Stack overflows are a security concern and must be addressed. The Libiberty demangler is part of several tools, including binutils, gdb, valgrind, and many other libbfd-based tools that are used by the security community for the analysis of program binaries. Without a patch, the

[Bug target/70990] New: [SH] Unreachable basic blocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70990 Bug ID: 70990 Summary: [SH] Unreachable basic blocks Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/70989] New: [SH] Further improve utilization of zero-displacement conditional branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70989 Bug ID: 70989 Summary: [SH] Further improve utilization of zero-displacement conditional branches Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[SH][committed] Improve utilization of zero-displacement conditional branches

Hi, On SH a conditional branch with a (physical) zero displacement jumps over the next instruction. On some SH hardware implementations these branches are handled in a special way which allows using it for conditional execution. A while ago I've added some hardcoded asm patterns to utilize

[Bug c++/26904] A template named the same as its member confuses lookup through inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26904 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/70795] [7 Regression] gcc/libjava/interpret.cc:1948:1: ICE: in binds_to_current_def_p, at symtab.c:2232

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70795 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/70988] New: missing buffer overflow warning on chained strcat calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70988 Bug ID: 70988 Summary: missing buffer overflow warning on chained strcat calls Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/70987] New: missing -Wuninitialized calling built-in string functions with an uninitialized argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70987 Bug ID: 70987 Summary: missing -Wuninitialized calling built-in string functions with an uninitialized argument Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

Re: [PATCH] Make basic asm implicitly clobber memory

A few questions: 1) I'm not clear precisely what problem this patch fixes. It's true that some people have incorrectly assumed that basic asm clobbers memory and this change would fix their code. But some people also incorrectly assume it clobbers registers. I assume that's why Jeff Law

Re: tuple move constructor

On 7 May 2016 at 00:39, Marc Glisse wrote: > Assuming we want the copy constructor to be defaulted, I think we still > could with concepts: > > tuple(tuple const&) > requires(__and_...>::value) > = default; > > While there is precedent for

[Bug target/70957] testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c fails on power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957 --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- The test also passed on P7 at the time I committed the patch.

Re: tuple move constructor

On Fri, 6 May 2016, Ville Voutilainen wrote: On 6 May 2016 at 20:51, Marc Glisse wrote: Hi Ville, since you wrote the latest patches on tuple constructors, do you have an opinion on this patch, or alternate strategies to achieve the same goal?

[Bug tree-optimization/70956] [6/7 Regression] ICE in build_cross_bb_scalars_def, at graphite-scop-detection.c:1725

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70956 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|7.0 |6.2

[Bug tree-optimization/70956] [6/7 Regression] ICE in build_cross_bb_scalars_def, at graphite-scop-detection.c:1725

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70956 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

Go patch committed: Add escape graph nodes

This patch by Chris Manghane adds nodes to the escape analysis graph in the Go frontend. They still aren't used for anything. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE

[RFA] Remove useless test in bitmap_find_bit.

I was looking at a performance regression with some threading changes I'm working on and spotted this trivial cleanup. in bitmap_find_bit: /* `element' is the nearest to the one we want. If it's not the one we want, the one we want doesn't exist. */ head->current = element; head->indx

[PATCH, i386]: Cleanup LEA splitters

2016-05-06 Uros Bizjak * config/i386/i386.md (LEAMODE): New mode attribute. (plus to LEA splitter): Rewrite splitter using LEAMODE mode attribute. (ashift to LEA splitter): Rewrte splitter using SWI mode iterator and LEAMODE mode attribute. Use VOIDmode

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add OVERRIDE and FINAL macros to coretypes.h

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 05/06/2016 05:40 PM, David Malcolm wrote: >> +#if __cplusplus >= 201103 >> +/* C++11 claims to be available: use it: */ >> +#define OVERRIDE override >> +#define FINAL final >> +#else >> +/* No C++11 support; leave the

Re: [PATCH 1/4] Make argv const char ** in read_md_files etc

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 04:49:27PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > This patch makes the argv param to read_md_files const, needed > so that the RTL frontend can call it on a const char *. > > While we're at it, it similarly makes const the argv for all > of the "main" functions of the various gen*.

[Bug tree-optimization/70986] New: ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in combine_blocks, at tree-if-conv.c:2219

/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 7.0.0 20160506 (experimental) [trunk revision 235952] (GCC) $ $ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c $ $ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c small.c: In function ‘fn2’: small.c:12:1: internal compiler error: in combine_blocks, at tree-if-conv.c:2219

[Bug c++/70983] False ambiguity on member function rvalue overload using auto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70983 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/70983] False ambiguity on member function rvalue overload using auto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70983 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/70957] testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c fails on power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957 --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- I applied the same patch to gcc-6-branch, and the test works correctly on a Power7 machine. Thus we appear to be exposing a recent problem introduced on trunk. I'll try to bisect this.

[Bug tree-optimization/70985] New: ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

--disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 7.0.0 20160506 (experimental) [trunk revision 235952] (GCC) $ $ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c $ $ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c small.c: In function ‘fn2’: small.c:15:1: error: invalid operand in unary operation fn2 () ^~~ # VUSE <.MEM_

[Bug c++/70984] New: Templated derived class erroneously allows taking address of private base class member functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70984 Bug ID: 70984 Summary: Templated derived class erroneously allows taking address of private base class member functions Product: gcc Version: 5.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/70943] Bogus 'conflicting declaration' error with repeated typedefs in function templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70943 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[gomp4.5] Parsing of most of OpenMP 4.5 clauses

Hi! This patch adds parsing of most of the OpenMP 4.5 clause changes, though doesn't do anything during resolve or later with them yet. Missing is still depend clause parsing changes (sink and source) and link and to clause for declare target construct. 2016-05-06 Jakub Jelinek

Re: tuple move constructor

On 6 May 2016 at 20:51, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hi Ville, > > since you wrote the latest patches on tuple constructors, do you have an > opinion on this patch, or alternate strategies to achieve the same goal? > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2016-04/msg00041.html I have

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add OVERRIDE and FINAL macros to coretypes.h

On 05/06/2016 07:33 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 07:10:33PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: >> I like your names without the GCC_ prefix better though, >> for the same reason of standardizing binutils-gdb + gcc >> on the same symbols. > > I agree, though I'm not really sure

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add OVERRIDE and FINAL macros to coretypes.h

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 07:10:33PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 05/06/2016 06:56 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > > > If building gcc as a C++11 program is supported, then it > > won't be possible to use these names as symbols for > > anything else anyway? > > Just found out the above is not true.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add OVERRIDE and FINAL macros to coretypes.h

On 05/06/2016 06:56 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > If building gcc as a C++11 program is supported, then it > won't be possible to use these names as symbols for > anything else anyway? Just found out the above is not true. Apparently I've been stuck in C++98 for too long... Sorry about the noise.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add OVERRIDE and FINAL macros to coretypes.h

On 05/06/2016 05:40 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > +#if __cplusplus >= 201103 > +/* C++11 claims to be available: use it: */ > +#define OVERRIDE override > +#define FINAL final > +#else > +/* No C++11 support; leave the macros empty: */ > +#define OVERRIDE > +#define FINAL > +#endif > + Is there a

Re: tuple move constructor

Hi Ville, since you wrote the latest patches on tuple constructors, do you have an opinion on this patch, or alternate strategies to achieve the same goal? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2016-04/msg00041.html On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Marc Glisse wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Jonathan Wakely

Go patch committed: Escape analysis framework

This patch by Chris Manghane implements the basic framework for the new escape analysis. It doesn't really do anything at this point, this is just a skeleton. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian 2016-05-06 Chris Manghane *

[Bug fortran/70949] Invalid aggregate against pointer comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70949 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- *** Bug 70950 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/70950] ICE with -O0 in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:5895

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70950 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Duplicate of pr70949. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 70949 ***

Re: [PATCH v2] add support for placing variables in shared memory

Allow using __attribute__((shared)) to place static variables in '.shared' memory space. Changes in v2: - reword diagnostic message in nvptx_handle_shared_attribute to follow other backends ("... attribute not allowed with auto storage class"); - reject explicit initialization of ".shared"

[Bug target/70957] testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c fails on power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- The other odd thing is that we fail only on the signed and unsigned long long cases, and all of the other variants work.

[Bug target/70957] testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c fails on power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Configuration for the two compilers used: $GCC_SRC/configure --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,go --with-cpu=power7 --disable-libsanitizer

[Bug rtl-optimization/70961] Regrename ignores preferred_rename_class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70961 --- Comment #5 from Wilco --- As for a simple example, Proc_4 in Dhrystone is a good one. With -O2 and -fno-rename-registers I get the following on Thumb-2: 00c8 : c8: b430push{r4, r5} ca: f240 0300 movwr3,

[Bug target/70957] testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c fails on power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/70979] [C++14] g++ falsely accepts constexpr function returning a lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70979 --- Comment #2 from Felix Morgner --- That is why I explicitly referred to C++14. I strongly believe, that the right thing to do would be to disable it (handle it as an error) since it is just that when compiling in C++14 mode. Maybe the error

Re: CONSTEXPR macro (was "Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add OVERRIDE and FINAL macros to coretypes.h")

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 12:32:47PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > Perhaps, but CONSTEXPR seems to be more awkward than OVERRIDE and > FINAL. The meanings of "final" and "override" are consistent between > C++11 and C++14, but C++14 allows more things to be marked as > "constexpr" than C++11.

CONSTEXPR macro (was "Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add OVERRIDE and FINAL macros to coretypes.h")

On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 18:20 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 12:40:45PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > C++11 adds the ability to add "override" after an implementation of > > a > > virtual function in a subclass, to: > > (A) document that this is an override of a virtual

[Bug rtl-optimization/70961] Regrename ignores preferred_rename_class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70961 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- > In which case it should not rename that chain rather than just ignore the > preference (and a preference of NO_REGS should probably also block renaming). That's not what the hook was initially designed

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add OVERRIDE and FINAL macros to coretypes.h

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 12:40:45PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > C++11 adds the ability to add "override" after an implementation of a > virtual function in a subclass, to: > (A) document that this is an override of a virtual function > (B) allow the compiler to issue a warning if it isn't (e.g. a

Re: Fix for PR68159 in Libiberty Demangler (6)

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Anyway, perhaps I'm misremembering, if there is a mode that really can't > fail due to allocation failures or not, we need to deal with that. > Ian or Jason, can all the demangle users allocate heap memory or not? > And,

Re: Fix for PR68159 in Libiberty Demangler (6)

On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 12:05:11AM +0800, Marcel Böhme wrote: > This patch also removes the following part of the comment for method > cplus_demangle_print_callback: > "It does not use heap memory to build an output string, so cannot encounter > memory allocation failure”. But that exactly is

[PATCH 2/2] jit: use FINAL and OVERRIDE throughout

Mark most virtual functions in gcc/jit as being FINAL OVERRIDE. gcc::jit::recording::lvalue::access_as_rvalue is the sole OVERRIDE that isn't a FINAL. Successfully bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. I can self-approve this, but as asked in patch 1, does "final" imply "override"? Is "final

[PATCH 1/2] Add OVERRIDE and FINAL macros to coretypes.h

C++11 adds the ability to add "override" after an implementation of a virtual function in a subclass, to: (A) document that this is an override of a virtual function (B) allow the compiler to issue a warning if it isn't (e.g. a mismatch of the type signature). Similarly, it allows us to add a

[Bug target/70941] [5/6 Regression] Test miscompiled with -O2.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70941 --- Comment #13 from Bill Seurer --- That fixed the issues on power, thanks!

Re: Fix for PR68159 in Libiberty Demangler (6)

Hi, This patch also removes the following part of the comment for method cplus_demangle_print_callback: "It does not use heap memory to build an output string, so cannot encounter memory allocation failure”. > On 6 May 2016, at 11:11 PM, Marcel Böhme wrote: > > >>

[gom[4] Improve loop partitioning

This patch improves the auto loop partitioning algorithm in 2 ways. 1) rather than try and assign just the outer loop to the outer partition and then all innermost loops to partitioning axis, this changes the algorithm to assign the innermost loop to the innermost partition and then the

[Bug c++/70979] [C++14] g++ falsely accepts constexpr function returning a lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70979 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR70941

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 09:37:46AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > The following completes the fix for PR67921 now that we have a testcase > for the non-pointer case. > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. The testcase (for obvious reasons) fails on -funsigned-char

[Bug c++/70977] Error during compilation of facebook/wangle (flag c++0x works, flag c++14 fails).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977 --- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- #0 tree_code_size (code=code@entry=CONSTRUCTOR) at ../../gcc/gcc/tree.c:848 #1 0x00fc562d in make_node_stat (code=code@entry=CONSTRUCTOR) at ../../gcc/gcc/tree.c:1005 #2 0x00fc88e4

[Bug c++/70977] Error during compilation of facebook/wangle (flag c++0x works, flag c++14 fails).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||compile-time-hog,

[Bug target/70941] [5/6 Regression] Test miscompiled with -O2.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70941 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri May 6 15:23:56 2016 New Revision: 235978 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235978=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/70941 * gcc.dg/torture/pr70941.c (abort): Remove

RE: [PATCH 2/4] [MIPS] Add pipeline description for MSA

Robert Suchanek writes: > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * config/mips/i6400.md (i6400_fpu_intadd, i6400_fpu_logic) > (i6400_fpu_div, i6400_fpu_cmp, i6400_fpu_float, i6400_fpu_store) > (i6400_fpu_long_pipe, i6400_fpu_logic_l, i6400_fpu_float_l) >

[Bug target/52933] SH Target: Use div0s for integer sign comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/58219] [SH] mov.l insn length is wrong on SH2A

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58219 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: Fix for PR68159 in Libiberty Demangler (6)

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 11:11:29PM +0800, Marcel Böhme wrote: > + dpi.copy_templates > += (struct d_print_template *) malloc (((size_t) dpi.num_copy_templates) > + * sizeof (*dpi.copy_templates)); > + if (! dpi.copy_templates) > +{ > +

Re: Fix for PR68159 in Libiberty Demangler (6)

> If one malloc succeeds and the other fails, you leak memory. > > Jakub Nice catch. Thanks! Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Best - Marcel Index: libiberty/ChangeLog === --- libiberty/ChangeLog

[Bug target/70941] [5/6 Regression] Test miscompiled with -O2.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70941 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- unsigned char perhaps? Let me fix up the testcase. It has other non-portable assumptions.

RE: [PATCH 1/4] [MIPS] Add support for MIPS SIMD Architecture (MSA)

Hi Robert, Robert Suchanek writes: > Revised patch attached. > > Tested with mips-img-linux-gnu and bootstrapped x86_64-unknown-linux- > gnu. One small tweak, ChangeLog should wrap at 74 columns. Please consider the full list of authors for this patch as it has had

[Bug target/63596] Saving of GPR/FPRs for stdarg even though the variable argument is not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63596 --- Comment #4 from Jiong Wang --- A patch set which clean up variable argument support on AArch64 has been sent for review https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg00508.html

[Bug target/70941] [5/6 Regression] Test miscompiled with -O2.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70941 Bill Seurer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---

[Bug c++/70977] Error during compilation of facebook/wangle (flag c++0x works, flag c++14 fails).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977 --- Comment #4 from Aleksander Gajewski --- Created attachment 38430 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38430=edit Preprocessed file compiled by gcc-6.1.

[AArch64][3/4] Don't generate redundant checks when there is no composite arg

AArch64 va_arg gimplify hook is generating redundant instructions. The current va_arg fetch logic is: 1 if (va_arg offset shows the arg is saved at reg_save_area) 2 if ((va_arg_offset + va_arg_type_size) <= 0) 3fetch va_arg from reg_save_area. 4 else 5fetch va_arg from

[AArch64][4/4] Simplify cfg during vaarg gimplification

Based on patch [3/4], we can further optimize the vaarg gimplification logic, this time not for redundant checks, but for redundant basic blocks. Thus we can simplify the control graph and eventually generate less branch instructions. The current gimplification logic requires three basic blocks:

[AArch64][2/4] PR63596, honor tree-stdarg analysis result to improve VAARG codegen

This patch fixes PR63596. There is no need to push/pop all arguments registers. We only need to push and pop those registers used. These use info is calculated by a dedicated vaarg optimization tree pass "tree-stdarg", the backend should honor it's analysis result. For a simple testcase where

[AArch64][1/4] Enable tree-stdarg pass for AArch64 by defining counter fields

This patch initialize va_list_gpr_counter_field and va_list_fpr_counter_field properly for AArch64 backend that tree-stdarg pass will be enabled. The "required register" analysis is largely target independent, but the user might operate on the inner offset field in vaarg structure directly, for

[Bug c++/70977] Error during compilation of facebook/wangle (flag c++0x works, flag c++14 fails).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977 --- Comment #3 from Aleksander Gajewski --- Created attachment 38429 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38429=edit Preprocessed file Preprocessed file causing gcc-6.1 crash.

[AArch64][0/4] Improve variable argument (vaarg) support

Currently, there are three major issues in AArch64 variable argument (vaarg) support. * tree-stdarg pass is not enabled, thus we are doing uncessary register pushes/popes. This is PR63596. * va_arg gimplification hook is generating sub-optimal code due to the runtime boundary check

[Bug c++/70983] New: False ambiguity on member function rvalue overload using auto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70983 Bug ID: 70983 Summary: False ambiguity on member function rvalue overload using auto Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: Fix for PR68159 in Libiberty Demangler (6)

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 10:46:12PM +0800, Marcel Böhme wrote: >d_print_init (, callback, opaque, dc); > > - { > -#ifdef CP_DYNAMIC_ARRAYS > -__extension__ struct d_saved_scope scopes[dpi.num_saved_scopes]; > -__extension__ struct d_print_template temps[dpi.num_copy_templates]; > +

[Bug libstdc++/70975] experimental/filesystem/operations/copy.cc FAILs on Solaris 12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70975 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

Re: [PATCH, RFC] Introduce -fsanitize=use-after-scope

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > On 05/06/2016 03:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Well, we already have the gimple poisoning/unpoisoning code on RTL (emitted > > after the prologue and before the epilogue), so it shouldn't be that hard. > > I'd only do the most

[Bug c++/70201] Dump C++ template instantiations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70201 Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #38139|0 |1 is obsolete|

Re: Fix for PR68159 in Libiberty Demangler (6)

Hi Jakub, > On 6 May 2016, at 5:51 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > > If you just want an array, restricting the size including the sizeof > to fit into int makes no sense, you want to guard it against overflows > during the multiplication. Okay, done. (Someone might want to

Re: [PATCH, RFC] Introduce -fsanitize=use-after-scope

On 05/06/2016 03:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Well, we already have the gimple poisoning/unpoisoning code on RTL (emitted > after the prologue and before the epilogue), so it shouldn't be that hard. > I'd only do the most common/easy cases inline though, like 1/2/4/8/16/32 > bytes long variables.

Re: [PATCH, RFC] Introduce -fsanitize=use-after-scope

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 05:22:46PM +0300, Yury Gribov wrote: > On 05/06/2016 03:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:48:30PM +0300, Yury Gribov wrote: > >>>6) As the use-after-scope stuff is already included in libsanitizer, no > >>>change is needed for the library > >> >

[Bug libstdc++/70982] experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc etc. FAIL with --enable-vtable-verify

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70982 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug libstdc++/70982] New: experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc etc. FAIL with --enable-vtable-verify

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70982 Bug ID: 70982 Summary: experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.c c etc. FAIL with --enable-vtable-verify Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[PATCH, i386]: Consolidate and remove unused register_and_not_{,any_}fp_reg_operand predicates

Hello! 2016-05-06 Uros Bizjak * config/i386/i386.md (int cmove peephole2s): Use general_reg_operand instead of register_and_not_any_fp_reg_operand as operand 0 predicate. * config/i386/predicates.md (register_and_not_any_fp_reg_operand): Remove unused

[Bug libstdc++/70360] abi_check FAILs with --enable-vtable-verify

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360 --- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth --- > I'm seeing the abi_check failure with --enable-vtable-verify on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and i386-pc-solaris2.12: 7 incompatible symbols 0

[PATCH, rs6000] Add support for int versions of vec_addec

This patch adds support for the signed and unsigned int versions of the vec_addec altivec builtins from the Power Architecture 64-Bit ELF V2 ABI OpenPOWER ABI for Linux Supplement (16 July 2015 Version 1.1). There are many of the builtins that are missing and this is part of a series of patches to

Re: [PATCH, ARM] use vmov.i64 to load 0 into FP reg if neon enabled

Hi Jim, On 05/05/16 22:37, Jim Wilson wrote: For this simple testcase double sub (void) { return 0.0; } Without the attached patch, an ARM compiler with neon support enabled, gives vldr.64 d0, .L2 With the attached patch, an ARM compiler with neon enabled, gives vmov.i64 d0,

[Bug libstdc++/70360] abi_check FAILs with --enable-vtable-verify

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [PING][PATCH] New plugin event when evaluating a constexpr call

Hi I made the corrections to the patch. Changelog 2016-5-6 Andres Tiraboschi *gcc/plugin.c (PLUGIN_EVAL_CALL_CONSTEXPR): New event. *gcc/plugin.def (PLUGIN_EVAL_CALL_CONSTEXPR): New event. *gcc/cp/constexpr.c (constexpr_fundef): Moved to

Re: [PATCH, RFC] Introduce -fsanitize=use-after-scope

On 05/06/2016 03:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:48:30PM +0300, Yury Gribov wrote: 6) As the use-after-scope stuff is already included in libsanitizer, no change is needed for the library Note that upstream seems to use a different cmdline interface. They don't have a

[Bug target/70981] [7 regression] gcc.target/i386/avx512f-vprord-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70981 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug target/70981] New: [7 regression] gcc.target/i386/avx512f-vprord-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70981 Bug ID: 70981 Summary: [7 regression] gcc.target/i386/avx512f-vprord-1.c FAILs Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/70980] New: ICE pre_and_rev_post_order_compute, at cfganal.c:1056

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70980 Bug ID: 70980 Summary: ICE pre_and_rev_post_order_compute, at cfganal.c:1056 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/70980] ICE pre_and_rev_post_order_compute, at cfganal.c:1056

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70980 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

Re: [PATCH, RFC] Introduce -fsanitize=use-after-scope

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:17:23PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > On 05/06/2016 01:48 PM, Yury Gribov wrote: > > On 05/06/2016 02:04 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > >> I've started working on the patch couple of month go, basically after > >> a brief discussion with Jakub on IRC. > >> > >> I'm sending the

Re: [PATCH v2] gcov: Runtime configurable destination output

On 02/24/16 16:52, Aaron Conole wrote: The previous gcov behavior was to always output errors on the stderr channel. This is fine for most uses, but some programs will require stderr to be untouched by libgcov for certain tests. This change allows configuring the gcov output via an environment

  1   2   3   >