Weird warning when building gcc

2017-09-22 Thread nick
Greetings All, I am wondering if this is a warning worth looking into or is it just another false postive: /home/nick/gcc/gcc/combine.c:1316:8: warning: ‘prev’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] if ((next = try_combine (insn, prev, NULL, NULL, Maybe it'

Re: Tom de Vries appointed nvptx maintainer

2017-09-22 Thread Yao Qi
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:30 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has > appointed Tom de Vries as nvptx maintainer. > Congratulations, Tom! -- Yao (齐尧)

Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.

2017-09-22 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:18:39 -0600, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 09/21/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:29 -0600, Carlos O'Donell > > wrote: > > > On 09/21/2017 10:50 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > So my question is, if I've gotten a patch reviewed by so

Tom de Vries appointed nvptx maintainer

2017-09-22 Thread David Edelsohn
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has appointed Tom de Vries as nvptx maintainer. Please join me in congratulating Tom on his new role. Tom, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file. Happy hacking! David

Re: GCC Buildbot

2017-09-22 Thread Joseph Myers
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Paulo Matos wrote: > > Note that even without a simulator (but with target libc), you can test > > just the compilation parts of the testsuite using a board file with a > > dummy _load implementation. > > > > I was not aware of that. I will keep that in mind once I try to

Re: GCC Buildbot

2017-09-22 Thread Paulo Matos
On 22/09/17 01:23, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Paulo Matos wrote: > >> Interesting suggestion. I haven't had the opportunity to look at the >> compile farm. However, it could be interesting to have a mix of workers: >> native compile farm ones and some x86_64 doing cross compilati

Re: "GOT" under aarch64

2017-09-22 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Hi, > > You'll get GOT relocations to globals when you use -fpic: > > int x; > int f(void) { return x; } >>gcc -O2 -S -o- -fpic > > f: > adrpx0, :got:x > ldr x0, [x0, #:got_lo12:x] > ldr w0, [x0] >

Re: "GOT" under aarch64

2017-09-22 Thread Wilco Dijkstra
Hi, You'll get GOT relocations to globals when you use -fpic: int x; int f(void) { return x; } >gcc -O2 -S -o- -fpic f: adrpx0, :got:x ldr x0, [x0, #:got_lo12:x] ldr w0, [x0] ret So it doesn't depend on the compiler but what options you compile for. T

Re: "GOT" under aarch64

2017-09-22 Thread Florian Weimer
* jacob navia: > 1) How can I know what I should generate? Should I figure out the gcc > version installed? > > 2) Is there any documentation for this change somewhere? What does it mean? It's probably due to a downstream packaging change to enable position-independent executables (PIE) by defau

"GOT" under aarch64

2017-09-22 Thread jacob navia
Hi I am writing a code generator for ARM64. To access a global variable I was generating     addrp x0,someglobal     add    x0,[x0,:lo12:someglobal] This worked without any problems with gcc version 4.9.2 (Debian/Linaro 4.9.2-10) and GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.25. I have updated m