https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100860
Bug ID: 100860
Summary: class(*) type is (character(*)) produces a
segmentation fault when run
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
In the case of value-initializing an object of class type T,
[dcl.init.general]/8 says:
- if T has either no default constructor ([class.default.ctor]) or
a default constructor that is user-provided or deleted, then the
object is default-initialized;
- otherwise, the object is
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:20 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki"
> To: "DJ Delorie"
> Cc: "Paul Koning" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, DJ Delorie via Gcc wrote:
>
> > > GCC is free software; you can redistribute it
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:00 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate
> as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software
A file should be kept with the author name, date and changes done by each
contributor.
Including this is the source code would make the history too long. Otherwise,
such information
can be put at the end of the file.
- Christopher Dimech
Society has became too quick to pass judgement and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100855
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If you do not care about correct rounding, you can replace
sum = sum + (i ** (0.05 + n))
by
sum = sum + exp (log (real(i)) * (0.05 + n))
I think __builtin_powf and powf do care.
I do
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:24 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "Paul Koning" , "Jakub Jelinek"
> , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> > > It is a real
Hi Richard,
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Earnshaw
> Sent: 13 April 2021 14:55
> To: Srinath Parvathaneni ; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Richard Earnshaw
> Subject: Re: [GCC][Patch] arm: Fix the mve multilib for the broken cmse
> support (pr99939).
>
>
>
> On 12/04/2021
Hi All,
On passing +cdecp[0-7] extension to the -march string in command line options,
multilib linking is failing as mentioned in PR100856. This patch fixes this
issue by generating a separate -march string only for multilib comparison.
Regression tested on arm-none-eabi and found no
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
>> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
>> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
>
> And copyright notices naming "The GNU Toolchain
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
And copyright notices naming "The GNU Toolchain Authors" should not
include a date - that's following the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91859
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
Status|NEW
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 12:09 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:40 AM Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>>>
>>> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
>>> Inc." and/or "The GNU
"Maciej W. Rozycki" writes:
> My interpretation of this would be for modifications rather than original
> sources, so v3+ applies to unmodified sources (for obvious reasons, given
> that the recipient of the sources is not a copyright holder), however as a
> copyright holder I can release my
But GPL3 has been a good license for GCC; giving up the theoretical ability
to change the license (other than to a later GPL) does not seem like a
significant loss.
That will cause trouble incorperating code or documentation snippets
from the code base into the GCC manual; which is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99725
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Jun 01 2021, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ our lists into a single folder named INLIST.gcc:
>
>
> :0
> -* ^Sender: .*-ow...@gcc.gnu.org
> +* ^List-Id: .*<.*@gcc.gnu.org>$
That will never match.
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab,
> So that cannot be the rationale for this.
I do not want to contribute my work to a project that requires FSF
copyright assignment to the rest of the project, even if it wouldn't
be required for (some of) my own contributions. In any case,
historically libstdc++ *does* require an assignment. If
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:09 AM
> From: "Paul Smith"
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 11:50 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> > The current, active license in GPL v3.0. This is not an announcement
> > of
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > It is a real problem. As I recall a while ago parts of QEMU had to be
> > removed and reimplemented from scratch when the project switched licences,
> > because a contributor and therefore a copyright holder (whom I knew in
> > person and who I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99725
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1cbde1725cac9ae53b892449c847f28f977f3a9b
commit r10-9877-g1cbde1725cac9ae53b892449c847f28f977f3a9b
Author: Alex Coplan
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, DJ Delorie via Gcc wrote:
> > GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
> > any later version.
> >
> > To me that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fixed the BE problem. Will look into the GCC11 report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100855
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100850
--- Comment #3 from Vlad ---
My bad. It's actually a UB. The lambda lifetime is just over by the moment of
resumption of the co-routine.
Hi! PR100750 reports a failure on my part to require the ELFv2 ABI for
one of the ROP tests. This fixes that.
Tested on powerpc64-linux-gnu, committed as obvious.
Thanks!
Bill
PR100750: Require ELFv2 ABI for ROP test
2021-06-01 Bill Schmidt
gcc/testsuite/
PR testsuite/100750
>> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
>> > an autonomous project.
>> >
>> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
>> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
>> > will continue to be developed,
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 11:50 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The current, active license in GPL v3.0. This is not an announcement
> of any change in license.
>
> Quoting Jason Merrill:
>
> "GCC's license is "GPL version 3 or later", so if there ever needed
> to be a GPL v4, we could move
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 at 4:01 AM
> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki"
> To: "Paul Koning"
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>
> > That seems to create a possible future
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by William Schmidt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:250cf86735fc9e088cc2309c520adb655790eb99
commit r12-1147-g250cf86735fc9e088cc2309c520adb655790eb99
Author: Bill Schmidt
Date:
The three-argument form of ranges::advance is supposed to return the
difference between the second argument and the distance the iterator was
advanced. When a non-random-access iterator is not advanced (because it
already equals the sentinel) we were returning 0 rather than n - 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100833
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8326291695c0f13124c232ddf4fd34e3310e649
commit r12-1146-gd8326291695c0f13124c232ddf4fd34e3310e649
Author: Jonathan Wakely
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:40 AM Paul Koning wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> > Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
>
> What does that mean? FSF is a well
>> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
>> > an autonomous project.
>> >
>> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
>> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
>> > will continue to be developed,
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:15 AM Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc
wrote:
>
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free
> What is the rationale after these changes anyway?
Development of new features for libstdc++ has already moved away from
gcc.gnu.org to avoid the copyright assignment. Other contributors have
expressed a desire to do the same.
>From the GCC mission statement:
- Other components
We haven't had Sender: for a while now. Use the standard List-Id:
header in its place.
Committed.
Segher
---
htdocs/lists.html | 8
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/htdocs/lists.html b/htdocs/lists.html
index 42a44ab83d9b..4ac5d5a84cd1 100644
---
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> That seems to create a possible future complication. Prior to this
> change, the FSF (as owner of the copyright) could make changes such as
> replacing the GPL 2 license by GPL 3. With the policy change, that
> would no longer be possible,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95719
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b
commit r10-9876-g1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100797
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b
commit r10-9876-g1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91859
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee3edeb01eca1cc8d7ebe777b4adb333f0c1118a
commit r11-8495-gee3edeb01eca1cc8d7ebe777b4adb333f0c1118a
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95719
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03
commit r11-8494-g7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03
Author: Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100797
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03
commit r11-8494-g7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03
Author: Jason Merrill
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:14 AM Jose E. Marchesi
wrote:
>
>
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software
On 5/21/21 6:43 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Yes, wrappers is a no-go. But you could just have added the features
you need to the generic code? Was there a technical reason not to do
that? It sounds useful in many places, not just here.
I agree it would be nice if all the gen* tools had
Paul Koning via Gcc writes:
>> GCC's license is "GPL version 3 or later", so if there ever needed to be a
>> GPL v4, we could move to it without needing permission from anyone.
>
> I don't think that is what the license says. It says:
>
> GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
Before C++20 added destroying operator delete, by the time we called
operator delete for a pointer, the object would already be gone. But that
isn't true for destroying delete. Since the optimizers' assumptions about
operator delete are based on either DECL_IS_REPLACEABLE_OPERATOR (which
already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91859
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf2b7020ee8e9745ede527b0a3b2e0ffbafd492b
commit r12-1145-gcf2b7020ee8e9745ede527b0a3b2e0ffbafd492b
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59202
Vladimir Fuka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94492
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:620cd7861e1266991c9c2a82e1e2d5f4d723ec88
commit r12-1144-g620cd7861e1266991c9c2a82e1e2d5f4d723ec88
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
"Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc" writes:
>> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
>> an autonomous project.
>>
>> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
>> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
>> will
On 01/06/2021 15:05, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
The patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636#c20
where
target option restore can be called and arm_fp16_format should be reset
to ARM_FP16_FORMAT_NONE.
It fixes the ICE in the PR.
Can please ARM folks test me the patch
> What is the rationale after these changes anyway?
Development of new features for libstdc++ has already moved away from
gcc.gnu.org to avoid the copyright assignment. Other contributors have
expressed a desire to do the same.
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 11:25:16AM -0400, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option)
> any later version.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100859
Bug ID: 100859
Summary: ICE in tsubst_omp_clauses, at cp/pt.c:17520
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
Priority:
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 11:08 AM, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:52 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>
>> | From: Mark Wielaard
>>
>> | This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
>> | Why was there no public discussion on this?
>>
>> Agreed. I also agree with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100858
Bug ID: 100858
Summary: Simple common code hoisting is not performed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be developed, distributed, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100857
Bug ID: 100857
Summary: Simple common code sinking is not performed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:52 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> | From: Mark Wielaard
>
> | This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
> | Why was there no public discussion on this?
>
> Agreed. I also agree with the rest of Mark's message.
>
> (Note: I haven't contributed to GCC but I have
> > What about the parts of GCC with FSF copyrights that are not covered by
> > the GPL, but the GPL with exceptions? How is it possible to move code
> > between the parts if a contributor previously used DCO and thus gave
> > only permission to license under the open source license "indicated in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100833
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100787
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100809
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
I believe this work is pending, but the patches are still under review.
On 6/1/21 4:54 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 6/1/21 10:51 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Andrew's last set of changes fixes the bootstrap problem on i686 when
global ranges are exported from evrp. The specific patch that fixes the
problem is 715914d3:
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date: Mon May
On Wed, 2021-05-26 at 10:00 -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 5/13/21 9:07 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 5/13/21 7:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > On 5/13/21 1:28 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > Ping.
> > > >
> > > > On 4/28/21 9:32 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
On 6/1/21 10:51 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Andrew's last set of changes fixes the bootstrap problem on i686 when
global ranges are exported from evrp. The specific patch that fixes the
problem is 715914d3:
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date: Mon May 31 12:13:50 2021 -0400
Andrew's last set of changes fixes the bootstrap problem on i686 when
global ranges are exported from evrp. The specific patch that fixes the
problem is 715914d3:
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date: Mon May 31 12:13:50 2021 -0400
Do not calculate new values when
I am pleased to see a change based on my recommendation. The FSF should not
refrain
from accepting contributions based on modified versions of software in instances
where the developer of the modified work is unable to get a copyright assignment
of the code, but are legally allowed to use a
| From: Mark Wielaard
| This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest.
| Why was there no public discussion on this?
Agreed. I also agree with the rest of Mark's message.
(Note: I haven't contributed to GCC but I have contributed to other
copylefted code bases.)
It is important that the pool
GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
an autonomous project.
That is true for all GNU project.
The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
will continue
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 16:24 +0200, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
> * David Edelsohn via Gcc:
>
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> > assign copyright for
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation,
> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate.
What does that mean? FSF is a well defined organization. "The GNU Toolchain
Authors" sounds like
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:15 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 10:00:06AM -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> > GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> > an autonomous project.
> >
> > The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the
Hi David,
On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:00 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under the GNU
>
Simple leak fix.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
* ipa-icf.h: Use auto_vec for memory_access_types.
---
gcc/ipa-icf.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67593
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pubby.8 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51155
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100685
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED
* David Edelsohn via Gcc:
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
> will continue to be
On 6/1/21 3:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 3:38 AM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
An ongoing issue is the the order we evaluate things in can affect
decisions along the way. As ranger isn't a fully iterative pass, we can
sometimes come up with different results if
On 6/1/2021 7:29 AM, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 6:25 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 3:05 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 11:54:53PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 5/31/2021 11:50 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
"H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches"
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 10:00:06AM -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
> an autonomous project.
>
> The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
> assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100841
--- Comment #2 from Jan-Benedict Glaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Guess following could fix it
> --- gcc/config/xtensa/xtensa.h.jj 2021-01-04 10:25:45.570157539 +0100
> +++ gcc/config/xtensa/xtensa.h2021-06-01
Hello.
As seen in the PR, one can easily corrupt line number information and
we can end up with a function that ends before it starts ;)
I'm adding a new warning for that instead of the ICE.
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-announce On Behalf Of Richard
> Biener
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2021 4:42 AM
> To: gcc-annou...@gcc.gnu.org; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; info-...@gnu.org
> Subject: [EXT] GCC 9.4 Released
>
> [Actual Sender is gcc-announce-boun...@gcc.gnu.org]
>
> The GNU
Hello.
The patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636#c20 where
target option restore can be called and arm_fp16_format should be reset
to ARM_FP16_FORMAT_NONE.
It fixes the ICE in the PR.
Can please ARM folks test me the patch on a Arm machine?
Thanks,
Martin
> PR target/100711
> * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_unary_operation_1):
> Simplify (vec_duplicate (not op)) to (not (vec_duplicate op)).
This is not a simplification. If we want to do this we need to document
this canonicalisation (in md.texi, "Insn Canonicalizations").
> +/*
GCC was created as part of the GNU Project but has grown to operate as
an autonomous project.
The GCC Steering Committee has decided to relax the requirement to
assign copyright for all changes to the Free Software Foundation. GCC
will continue to be developed, distributed, and licensed under
Hello,
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 5/31/21 5:49 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hello Martin,
> >
> > On Mon, 31 May 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> >> I've made quite some progress with the porting of the documentation and
> >> I would like to present it to the community now:
>
Hello,
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 5/31/21 5:49 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hello Martin,
> >
> > On Mon, 31 May 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> >> I've made quite some progress with the porting of the documentation and
> >> I would like to present it to the community now:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100826
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Firas Khalil Khana from comment #4)
> Glad I could help. Thanks for your time and effort!
You're welcome. We thank you for reporting that!
I have some old numbers from late April.
VRP vs ranger was more difficult to compare than evrp, since the
gimple is different (ASSERT_EXPRs). What I did was run a late evrp
pass before each VRP pass and compared branches that were folded, for
an estimate.
On it's own VRP1 could fold 5482
On 5/19/21 11:48 PM, Joern Wolfgang Rennecke wrote:
We set default for some target options in TARGET_OPTION_OPTIMIZATION_TABLE,
but these can be overridden by specifying the corresponding explicit
-mXXX / -mno-XXX options.
When a function bears the attribue
__attribute__ ((optimize("02")))
the
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 04:32:42PM +0800, Hongtao Liu wrote:
[ no attachment to reply to ]
Please send this with either the patch actually inline, or as
attachment with content-disposition inline, no encoding, and a valid
text mimetype. So that people can see it, also on the archives, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100643
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100826
--- Comment #4 from Firas Khalil Khana ---
Glad I could help. Thanks for your time and effort!
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 1:17 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 5/28/21 2:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> There's a fallout after my revision
> >> ebd5e86c0f41dc1d692f9b2b68a510b1f6835a3e. I would like to analyze
> >> all
On Sun, 2021-05-30 at 20:38 +0530, Ankur Saini wrote:
> hello
Hi Ankur, sorry about the delayed reply (it was a long weekend here in
the US)
> I was successfully able to build gcc with bootstrapping disabled and
> using xgcc directly from the build directory instead ( reducing the
> overall
101 - 200 of 902 matches
Mail list logo
