[Bug tree-optimization/83311] New: Unable to optimize alloc calls with casts and string builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83311 Bug ID: 83311 Summary: Unable to optimize alloc calls with casts and string builtins Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug ada/83310] New: Compiler crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83310 Bug ID: 83310 Summary: Compiler crash Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ada Assignee:

Re: question about inlining

On December 7, 2017 2:15:53 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor wrote: >On 12/06/2017 12:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On December 6, 2017 6:38:11 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor > wrote: >>> While testing a libstdc++ patch that relies on inlining to >>> expose a GCC

Re: [PATCH][i386,AVX] Enable VAES support [2/5]

Hello Julia, On 08 Nov 12:32, Koval, Julia wrote: > Hi, this patch enables VAESDEC instruction from VAES isaset, defined here: > https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/c5/15/architecture-instruction-set-extensions-programming-reference.pdf > > Ok for trunk? Your patch is OK. I've

Re: [committed][PATCH] Add tests

On 12/06/2017 04:50 PM, Jeff Law wrote: Richi's fix for 83202 fixed a few other bugs in the BZ database. This patch adds regression tests for the 3 I trivially found. Committing to the trunk. The test submitted in pr82286 relied on the ERROR macro being defined to trigger the false positive

[Bug c/83309] New: Structure elements have O(n^2) compile time slowdown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83309 Bug ID: 83309 Summary: Structure elements have O(n^2) compile time slowdown Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

Re: question about inlining

On 12/06/2017 12:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On December 6, 2017 6:38:11 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor wrote: While testing a libstdc++ patch that relies on inlining to expose a GCC limitation I noticed that the same member function of a class template is inlined into one

[Bug go/83308] Missing platform definitions for SH in libgo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308 --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor --- I suspect you'll need other changes as well, such as a new file libgo/go/internal/syscall/unix/getrandom_linux_sh.go. For that matter you'll need to add sh to libgo/go/go/build/syslist.go and to match.sh

[Bug go/83308] Missing platform definitions for SH in libgo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308 --- Comment #1 from Rich Felker --- If PCQUANTUM is the minimum unit/alignment for the program counter, which it sounds like, then the value should be 2 not 4. SH has 16-bit opcodes.

[Bug go/83308] New: Missing platform definitions for SH in libgo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308 Bug ID: 83308 Summary: Missing platform definitions for SH in libgo Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: go

Re: [committed] prune warning from test output to avoid arm-none-eabi failure (PR 83303)

On 12/06/2017 03:58 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 12/06/2017 12:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 12/06/2017 12:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: For reference, I committed r255450 to avoid the test failure reported on the arm-none-eabi target. The warning is valid but unrelated to the purpose of the test so I

[Bug tree-optimization/80641] [7/8 Regression] Warning with std::vector resize in loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So based my findings around c#5 we can classify this as a false positive. GCC has enough information lying around to prove the problematical memset can never be reached, but fails to do so. Martin's patch

[Bug tree-optimization/69224] [6/7 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O3 and struct pointer parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69224 --- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Wed Dec 6 23:50:58 2017 New Revision: 255457 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255457=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/69224 PR tree-optimization/80907 PR

[Bug middle-end/82286] [6/7 Regression] Wrong array subscript is above array bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82286 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Wed Dec 6 23:50:58 2017 New Revision: 255457 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255457=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/69224 PR tree-optimization/80907 PR

[Bug tree-optimization/80907] [6/7 Regression] False positive: "warning: array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80907 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Wed Dec 6 23:50:58 2017 New Revision: 255457 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255457=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/69224 PR tree-optimization/80907 PR

[committed][PATCH] Add tests

Richi's fix for 83202 fixed a few other bugs in the BZ database. This patch adds regression tests for the 3 I trivially found. Committing to the trunk. Jeff commit 813ce64afdf420b8d5e3fee59473f2527c5d0d4d Author: Jeff Law Date: Wed Dec 6 18:46:01 2017 -0500

[Bug c++/83307] New: Miscompilation of range_for with initializer_list in constructors on MacOS (works on Linux)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83307 Bug ID: 83307 Summary: Miscompilation of range_for with initializer_list in constructors on MacOS (works on Linux) Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0

Re: [committed] prune warning from test output to avoid arm-none-eabi failure (PR 83303)

On 12/06/2017 12:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 12/06/2017 12:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> For reference, I committed r255450 to avoid the test failure >> reported on the arm-none-eabi target.  The warning is valid >> but unrelated to the purpose of the test so I pruned it from >> its output. >> >>

[Bug bootstrap/81470] [8 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failures in gcc/ada

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470 --- Comment #15 from hainque at adacore dot com --- And thanks Rainer for having confirmed that it resolves the problem for you as well. > On Dec 6, 2017, at 23:54 , hainque at adacore dot com > wrote: > >>>

Re: [patch] prevent .cfi_personality/.cfi_lsda on !dwarf eh configurations

Hello, ping for https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg02537.html > On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:18 , Olivier Hainque wrote: > > Bootstrap is currently broken with Ada on x86_64-windows using SEH exceptions, >PR ada/81470 >* dwarf2out.c

[Bug bootstrap/81470] [8 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failures in gcc/ada

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470 --- Comment #14 from hainque at adacore dot com --- > On Dec 6, 2017, at 21:16 , rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de > wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470 >> >> Confirmed, this patch solves the

[Bug c++/80259] [6/7 Regression] ICE deleting friend function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80259 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE |[6/7 Regression] ICE

[Bug sanitizer/81281] [6/7 Regression] UBSAN: false positive, dropped promotion to long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] UBSAN: |[6/7 Regression] UBSAN:

[Bug tree-optimization/83293] [8 regression] ICE: in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:278

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83293 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/80259] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE deleting friend function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80259 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Dec 6 22:48:39 2017 New Revision: 255456 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255456=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/80259 * decl2.c (grokfield): Diagnose = delete redefinition

gcc-6-20171206 is now available

Snapshot gcc-6-20171206 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20171206/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6

Re: [C++ PATCH] Diagnose = delete override of a friend function defined earlier (PR c++/80259)

OK. On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > As the testcase shows, we weren't diagnosing the foo case in the testcase > and would just silently overwrite old DECL_INITIAL with error_mark_node > and ICE later on. Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on

Re: [PATCHv3] Add a warning for invalid function casts

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > this version of the patch improves the heuristic check to take the > target hook into account, to handle cases correctly when both or only > one parameter is _not_ promoted to int. In looking at this, I discovered

[Bug libstdc++/83306] New: filesystem_error is not nothrow copyable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83306 Bug ID: 83306 Summary: filesystem_error is not nothrow copyable Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++

[Bug c++/82115] [8 Regression] ICE on (valid) C++11 code: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

Backports to gcc 7.x

I would like to backport the following patch to the GCC 7 branch. PR80101: Fix ICE in store_data_bypass_p https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg00953.html This patch has been bootstrapped and regression tested on the GCC 7 branch. Is this ok for backporting to GCC 7?

Re: targetm.calls.promote_prototypes parameter

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:31 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Jason Merrill writes: >> I'm inclined to change the C++ FE to pass NULL_TREE instead until such >> time as someone cares. > > The sh backend will at least not choke on that ;-) Thus. commit

[Bug c++/82115] [8 Regression] ICE on (valid) C++11 code: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Wed Dec 6 21:42:02 2017 New Revision: 255454 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255454=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/82115 - ICE with variable initialized with its own address.

C++ PATCH for c++/82115, ICE with variable initialized to own address

In this testcase, we consider the initializer of b to decide if it's value-dependent, but the initializer mentions b, so we were recursing infinitely. But if we're interested in the address, we don't care about the value; we already handle that appropriately in the constexpr code, this patch

[Bug preprocessor/83305] Some warnings are suppressed when compiling preprocessed files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83305 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[PATCH] Use tail calls to memcpy/memset even for structure assignments (PR target/41455, PR target/82935)

Hi! Aggregate assignments and clears aren't in GIMPLE represented as calls, and while often they expand inline, sometimes we emit libcalls for them. This patch allows us to tail call those libcalls if there is nothing after them. The patch changes the tailcall pass, so that it recognizes a = b;

Re: [047/nnn] poly_int: argument sizes

On 10/23/2017 11:20 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > This patch changes various bits of state related to argument sizes so > that they have type poly_int64 rather than HOST_WIDE_INT. This includes: > > - incoming_args::pops_args and incoming_args::size > - rtl_data::outgoing_args_size > -

[Bug c++/82115] [8 Regression] ICE on (valid) C++11 code: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug bootstrap/81470] [8 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failures in gcc/ada

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470 --- Comment #13 from Rainer Emrich --- (In reply to Rainer Emrich from comment #12) > (In reply to Olivier Hainque from comment #11) > > Comment on attachment 42747 [details] > > don't emit .cfi_personality/.cfi_lsda

Re: [001/nnn] poly_int: add poly-int.h

On 11/13/2017 05:04 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Sandiford writes: >> Richard Sandiford writes: >>> This patch adds a new "poly_int" class to represent polynomial integers >>> of the form: >>> >>> C0 + C1*X1 + C2*X2 ... +

Re: [committed] prune warning from test output to avoid arm-none-eabi failure (PR 83303)

On 12/06/2017 12:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 12/06/2017 12:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 12/06/2017 12:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> For reference, I committed r255450 to avoid the test failure >>> reported on the arm-none-eabi target.  The warning is valid >>> but unrelated to the purpose of

[Bug c/83236] "Did you mean" suggestions maybe shouldn't offer implementation-private names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83236 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [029/nnn] poly_int: get_ref_base_and_extent

On 10/23/2017 11:11 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > This patch changes the types of the bit offsets and sizes returned > by get_ref_base_and_extent to poly_int64. > > There are some callers that can't sensibly operate on polynomial > offsets or handle cases where the offset and size aren't known >

[Bug c/83236] "Did you mean" suggestions maybe shouldn't offer implementation-private names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83236 --- Comment #7 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Wed Dec 6 20:02:55 2017 New Revision: 255453 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255453=gcc=rev Log: C/C++: don't suggest implementation names as spelling fixes (PR c/83236)

[Bug preprocessor/83305] New: Some warnings are suppressed when compiling preprocessed files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83305 Bug ID: 83305 Summary: Some warnings are suppressed when compiling preprocessed files Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [committed] prune warning from test output to avoid arm-none-eabi failure (PR 83303)

On 12/06/2017 12:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 12/06/2017 12:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: For reference, I committed r255450 to avoid the test failure reported on the arm-none-eabi target. The warning is valid but unrelated to the purpose of the test so I pruned it from its output. Martin Index:

Re: [committed] prune warning from test output to avoid arm-none-eabi failure (PR 83303)

On 12/06/2017 12:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > For reference, I committed r255450 to avoid the test failure > reported on the arm-none-eabi target.  The warning is valid > but unrelated to the purpose of the test so I pruned it from > its output. > > Martin > > Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog >

[Bug c++/83300] Segmentation fault with template and __attribute__((vector_size (sizeof(int) * N)));

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83300 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > > Created attachment 42801 [details] > > gcc8-pr83300.patch > > > > Completely untested patch. > > OK.

[PATCH] Allow USE in PARALLELs in store_data_bypass_p

Hi! When looking at the rs6000_store_data_bypass_p stuff, I've noticed that it accepts PARALLELs containing not just SETs and CLOBBERs like store_data_bypass_p, but also USEs. Given that it is something that single_set also ignores, I think fixing store_data_bypass_p is the right fix here.

[Bug c++/83300] Segmentation fault with template and __attribute__((vector_size (sizeof(int) * N)));

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83300 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Created attachment 42801 [details] > gcc8-pr83300.patch > > Completely untested patch. OK.

[committed] Fix ICE in slsr (PR tree-optimization/83293)

Hi! We don't really care about gsi after this statement, and GSI_SAME_STMT on gsi_insert_after is wrong if the bb we're inserting into is empty. So, either we'd need to use the gsi_insert_before with GSI_SAME_STMT in that case by tweaking the if, or we just tweak the last argument.

Re: targetm.calls.promote_prototypes parameter

Jason Merrill writes: > I'm inclined to change the C++ FE to pass NULL_TREE instead until such > time as someone cares. The sh backend will at least not choke on that ;-)

Re: targetm.calls.promote_prototypes parameter

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 02:27:55PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:47:41AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > >> > >> In my original proposal, I said this: > >> > >> > It includes a bunch of macro->hook

Re: targetm.calls.promote_prototypes parameter

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:47:41AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: >> >> In my original proposal, I said this: >> >> > It includes a bunch of macro->hook conversions, mostly because the >> > hooks need an additional parameter (the

[Bug tree-optimization/83293] [8 regression] ICE: in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:278

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83293 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Dec 6 19:27:41 2017 New Revision: 255451 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255451=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/83293 * gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

[committed] prune warning from test output to avoid arm-none-eabi failure (PR 83303)

For reference, I committed r255450 to avoid the test failure reported on the arm-none-eabi target. The warning is valid but unrelated to the purpose of the test so I pruned it from its output. Martin Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

Re: [PATCH] Avoid introducing UB in match.pd (T)(P+A)-(T)(P+B) and similar optimizations (PR sanitizer/81281)

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 02:44:22PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > As mentioned in the PR, while (T)(P + A) - (T)P -> (T) A > shouldn't introduce UB when it wasn't there earlier, > (T)P - (T)(P + A) -> -(T) A > and > (T)(P + A) - (T)(P + B) -> (T)A - (T)B > can, so if the conversion to T isn't

[Bug testsuite/83303] [8 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/new1.C on arm-none-eabi (extra -Walloc-size-larger-than warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83303 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/83304] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr61725.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304 --- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool --- But losing a clobber like that is just fine (even losing a SET is fine, if its dest is REG_UNUSED, and combine actually does that in certain cases).

[Bug testsuite/83303] [8 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/new1.C on arm-none-eabi (extra -Walloc-size-larger-than warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83303 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Wed Dec 6 19:22:55 2017 New Revision: 255450 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255450=gcc=rev Log: PR testsuite/83303 - FAIL: g++.dg/opt/new1.C on arm-none-eabi (extra

[Bug sanitizer/81281] [6/7/8 Regression] UBSAN: false positive, dropped promotion to long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Dec 6 19:22:06 2017 New Revision: 255449 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255449=gcc=rev Log: PR sanitizer/81281 * match.pd ((T)(P + A) - (T)P -> (T) A): Split

[Bug target/83252] [8 Regression] Wrong code with "-march=skylake-avx512 -O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252 --- Comment #13 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12) > This broke again with r255377. > Testcase in patch form at > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00133.html I've started to work on it. In any

Re: question about inlining

On December 6, 2017 6:38:11 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor wrote: >While testing a libstdc++ patch that relies on inlining to >expose a GCC limitation I noticed that the same member function >of a class template is inlined into one function in the test but >not into the other, even

[Bug rtl-optimization/80818] LRA clobbers live hard reg clobbered during rematerialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80818 --- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov --- I am still working on this PR. I hope to fix it on this week or on the next one (the patch will need a lot of testing).

Overdue payment

I have tracked this order and it was delivered on 12/06/2017 @ 01:54. The tracking number is Fedex #48876355336. If you have anymore questions please call me. http://www.americaneskimopups.com/Order-Confirmation/ Best wishes, Xen-devel

Re: [025/nnn] poly_int: SUBREG_BYTE

On 10/23/2017 11:10 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > This patch changes SUBREG_BYTE from an int to a poly_int. > Since valid SUBREG_BYTEs must be contained within the mode of the > SUBREG_REG, the required range is the same as for GET_MODE_SIZE, > i.e. unsigned short. The patch therefore uses

[Bug testsuite/83303] [8 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/new1.C on arm-none-eabi (extra -Walloc-size-larger-than warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83303 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [PATCH] v4: C/C++: don't suggest implementation names as spelling fixes (PR c/83236)

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:11 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > + const char *suggestion_str = IDENTIFIER_POINTER (binding->id); > + if (name_reserved_for_implementation_p (suggestion_str)) You might add an overload that takes an identifier. OK either way. Jason

Re: [018/nnn] poly_int: MEM_OFFSET and MEM_SIZE

On 10/23/2017 11:07 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > This patch changes the MEM_OFFSET and MEM_SIZE memory attributes > from HOST_WIDE_INT to poly_int64. Most of it is mechanical, > but there is one nonbovious change in widen_memory_access. > Previously the main while loop broke with: > > /*

[Bug rtl-optimization/83304] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr61725.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304 --- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- So I'm digging through the combine dumps... Before the r255384 we have: Trying 70 -> 19: 70: r131:SI={(cc:CC!=0)?r130:SI:0x} REG_DEAD r130:SI 19:

[Bug tree-optimization/83299] result of pointer addition can be assumed to be less than or equal to PTRDIFF_MAX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83299 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- Yes, I know the POINTER_PLUS operand is represented as sizetype. But since (when) we know the operand comes from an unsigned expression as in the test case I'm wondering if that information could be used to

[Bug tree-optimization/82646] bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on strncpy with range to a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Wed Dec 6 17:59:01 2017 New Revision: 255448 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255448=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/82646 - bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on

[Bug tree-optimization/82646] bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on strncpy with range to a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: glue file built with compiler in PATH in out of tree testing

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > == problem == > > I'm not sure where is the proper place to fix this. Obviously setting > CC_FOR_TARGET in contrib/test_installed or when calling runtest manually would > work but I wonder if this would not be better fixed somewhere else? The rest >

[Bug tree-optimization/83075] [8 Regression] Invalid strncpy optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83075 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/83075] [8 Regression] Invalid strncpy optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83075 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Fixed in r255446.

[Bug tree-optimization/83075] [8 Regression] Invalid strncpy optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83075 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Wed Dec 6 17:47:45 2017 New Revision: 255446 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255446=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/83075 - Invalid strncpy optimization gcc/ChangeLog:

[Bug tree-optimization/80641] [7/8 Regression] Warning with std::vector resize in loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

libgo patch committed: Remove -fplan9-extensions from CFLAGS

This patch by Than McIntosh removes -fplan9-extensions from the CFLAGS used for libgo. It is no longer needed since the runtime was converted from C to Go. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline. Ian Index: gcc/go/gofrontend/MERGE

[Bug middle-end/41455] memcpy not tail called if it's a struct assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41455 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

question about inlining

While testing a libstdc++ patch that relies on inlining to expose a GCC limitation I noticed that the same member function of a class template is inlined into one function in the test but not into the other, even though it is inlined into each if each is compiled separately (i.e., in a file on

Re: [040/nnn] poly_int: get_inner_reference & co.

On 10/23/2017 11:17 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > This patch makes get_inner_reference and ptr_difference_const return the > bit size and bit position as poly_int64s rather than HOST_WIDE_INTS. > The non-mechanical changes were handled by previous patches. > > > 2017-10-23 Richard Sandiford

glue file built with compiler in PATH in out of tree testing

Hi, TL;DR: where to tell dejagnu about the compiler to use for building testglue? == context == I've just found out that testglue.c is built using the compiler in PATH when doing out of tree testing rather than using the one specified by GCC_UNDER_TEST (or other *_UNDER_TEST). This is

Re: targetm.calls.promote_prototypes parameter

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:47:41AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > In my original proposal, I said this: > > > It includes a bunch of macro->hook conversions, mostly because the > > hooks need an additional parameter (the function) to detect which ones > > are Renesas ABI and which are GCC ABI. >

Re: [PATCH] Add testcase for PR83252 (was Re: patch to fix PR80818)

On 12/05/2017 07:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:52:01AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 05:21:22PM -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote: The following patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80818 The patch was successfully tested

Re: targetm.calls.promote_prototypes parameter

In my original proposal, I said this: > It includes a bunch of macro->hook conversions, mostly because the > hooks need an additional parameter (the function) to detect which ones > are Renesas ABI and which are GCC ABI. The original documentation at least hinted that the parameter was a

[PATCH, rs6000] Gimple folding of splat_uX

Hi, Add support for gimple folding of splat_u{8,16,32}. Testcase coverage is primarily handled by existing tests testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-splat_*.c One new test added to verify we continue to receive an 'invalid argument, must be a 5-bit immediate' error when we try to splat a

[Bug c++/64867] warning for passing non-POD to varargs function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867 --- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely --- No, because it doesn't have any tests. It should probably adjust: ../gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/overload/ellipsis1.C ../gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/overload/ellipsis2.C ../gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/vaarg3.C

Re: [PATCH] avoid assuming strncat/strncpy don't change length of source string (PR 83075)

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 09:20:15AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > Attached is a patch with the comment updated/simplified. > The tests do the job they need to do today so I just removed > the useless attribute but otherwise left them unchanged. If > you would like to enhance them in some way please

Re: [PATCH][GCC][ARM] Generate .arch and .arch_extensions for each function if required. [Patch (3/3)]

Hi Tamar, On 06/11/17 16:52, Tamar Christina wrote: Hi All, This patch adds the needed machinery to generate the appropriate .arch and .arch_extension directives per function. Borrowing from AArch64 this is only done when it's required (i.e. when the directives to be set differ from the

[Bug tree-optimization/83298] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83298 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I see what's going on here. I'm a bit concerned there's a deeper issue. Some planned gcc-9 work would take care of this, but I was hoping to avoid those changes in the gcc-8 cycle. Investigating the

Re: [PATCH] avoid assuming strncat/strncpy don't change length of source string (PR 83075)

Attached is a patch with the comment updated/simplified. The tests do the job they need to do today so I just removed the useless attribute but otherwise left them unchanged. If you would like to enhance them in some way please feel free. Martin On 11/20/2017 02:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On

[Bug tree-optimization/81165] [8 Regression] Regression in GCC-8.0.0's optimizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165 --- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Yea, I just looked and it's somewhat painful to do because of how threading works. We walk statements forward and stop when we hit the limit. But DCE analysis is easier to formulate as a backwards walk.

Re: [PATCH TEST]Adjust GRAPHITE tests in preparation for loop interchange

On December 6, 2017 5:12:08 PM GMT+01:00, Bin Cheng wrote: >Hi, >The loop interchange pass reuses option -floop-interchange from >GRAPHITE, this patch >adjusts all affected GRAPHITE tests by changing the option to >-floop-nest-optimize. >Test result checked with/without loop

Re: GCC 7.3 timeline?

On December 6, 2017 3:29:28 PM GMT+01:00, Paul Smith wrote: >Hi all; are we on track to have a GCC 7.3 sometime in the next few >weeks, as per usual for the last few years? Not looking for a date, >just a feeling. > >I'm not sure why my toolchain rollouts always seem to

[PATCH TEST]Adjust GRAPHITE tests in preparation for loop interchange

Hi, The loop interchange pass reuses option -floop-interchange from GRAPHITE, this patch adjusts all affected GRAPHITE tests by changing the option to -floop-nest-optimize. Test result checked with/without loop interchange. Is it OK? Thanks, bin gcc/testsuite 2017-12-06 Bin Cheng

[Bug tree-optimization/81165] [8 Regression] Regression in GCC-8.0.0's optimizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165 --- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva --- Created attachment 42802 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42802=edit patch, second try (following backlinks from dead uses to maybe-dead defs) Here's an alternate patch that gets us

[Bug rtl-optimization/83304] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr61725.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304 --- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4) > With r255384 combine manages to do many more combinations. Without it, it > can get rid of most of the loop body (which should have been

[Bug rtl-optimization/83304] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr61725.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304 --- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool --- With r255384 combine manages to do many more combinations. Without it, it can get rid of most of the loop body (which should have been optimised away in gimple already really). I don't see how it

Re: [PATCH] Ability to remap file names in __FILE__, etc (PR other/70268)

On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 12:10 +0200, Boris Kolpackov wrote: > The below patch adds the -fmacro-prefix-map option that allows > remapping > of file names in __FILE__, __BASE_FILE__, and __builtin_FILE(), > similar > to how -fdebug-prefix-map allows to do the same for debug > information. > >

  1   2   >