Though sleep, nanosleep and clock_nanosleep are all POSIX cancellation
points, not all target systems follow this POSIX requirement.
30_threads/thread/native_handle/cancel.cc will run until it times out
on such systems.
Rather than failing a C++ library test because of a limitation of the
Networking functions that net_ts tests rely on are defined in libbsd
on RTEMS, so link with it.
Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, also tested with a cross to
aarch64-rtems6. Ok to install?
for libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
* testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp (add_options_for_net_ts): Add
On Jun 21, 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Could we instead have a new target selector for whether the memory
> map includes xGB of RAM?
How about this? Testing on aarch64-rtems6.0. Ok to install?
aarch64: testsuite: symbol-range fallback to compile
From: Alexandre Oliva
On some of our
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106052
--- Comment #1 from Matt Beardsley ---
Just wanted to clarify that the prev. comment only reproduces with an asserted
build.
However, I first observed this in a 300,000+ LOC preprocessed file with a
release gcc build. But I could not stably
On 6/20/22 16:16, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/20/22 07:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 05:20:02PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
Related to PR104642, the current situation where we get less return
checking
with just -fsanitize=unreachable than no sanitize flags seems
undesirable;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106052
Bug ID: 106052
Summary: ICE with -Wmismatched-tags with partially specialized
friend struct of self type
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On 6/21/22 07:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 04:30:51PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
I'd still prefer to see a separate -funreachable-traps.
The thing is that -fsanitize{,-recover,-trap}= are global options, not per
function (and only tweaked by no_sanitize attribute), while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105870
--- Comment #8 from JUN SHA ---
I have fixed this bug and will commit the patch then.
On Wed, 25 May 2022 23:11:00 PDT (-0700), Kito Cheng wrote:
LGTM, thanks :)
Committed.
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:31 AM Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog
* doc/invoke.texi (RISC-V): Document -mtune=thead-c906.
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt
---
gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 2 +-
1
I forgot the DCO line. And I edited the commit message, but I can't push,
even forced push doesn't work.
Now I get the non-fast-forward error, is there any way to solve this?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 9:31 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 01:20:28AM +0200, Mohamed Atef wrote:
> >
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 12:52 PM Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
wrote:
>
> Fortify buffer overflow message reported.
> (see https://github.com/earlephilhower/esp-quick-toolchain/issues/36)
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/xtensa/xtensa.md (bswapsi2_internal):
> Enlarge the buffer
On Jun 21, 2022, Fangrui Song wrote:
> Is this similar to clang -nostdlib++ ?
> When libstdc++ is selected, clang -nostdlib++ removes -lstdc++.
Sounds like they're the same indeed, but the clang option you mention
makes little sense to me, so I'd rather to introduce the one that does.
If
> -Original Message-
> From: Tamar Christina
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 4:58 PM
> To: Richard Sandiford ; Richard Biener
>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2]middle-end Support optimized division by pow2
> bitmask
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> >
On Jun 21, 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 06:54, Alexandre Oliva via Libstdc++
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As in the gcc testsuite, systems without preemptive multi-threading
>> require sched_yield calls to be placed at points in which a context
>> switch might be needed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106051
Bug ID: 106051
Summary: -Wmismatched-tags gives false positive warning when
"class C" is "using namespace"d into a namespace with
another "class C" declaration
Product:
On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 22:00 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> On Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 12:13 AM CEST, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-06-17 at 22:23 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 01:48:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2022-06-17 at 17:54 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105991
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4306339798b6843937c628c5ece8c234b309b13d
commit r13-1191-g4306339798b6843937c628c5ece8c234b309b13d
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Wed
On Sat Jun 18, 2022 at 12:13 AM CEST, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-06-17 at 22:23 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 01:48:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2022-06-17 at 17:54 +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
>
> [...snip...]
>
> > >
> >
> > I have resent the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106035
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #2 from kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106035
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 53187
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53187=edit
implementation of feature; no testcases
The attach patch has had some minimal testing while it was under
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53171|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 09:28:27PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691
>
> --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Submitted version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Submitted version: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-June/057940.html
Dear all,
compile time simplification of INDEX(str1,str2,back=.true.) gave wrong
results. Looking at gfc_simplify_index, this appeared to be close to
a complete mess, while the runtime library code - which was developed
later - was a relief.
The solution is to use the runtime library code as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99963
tabloid.adroit at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tabloid.adroit at gmail
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> Joseph: is the target hook the way to go with this? Would it look
> something like:
>
> DEFHOOK (fd_access_mode, "FIXME", int (int))
>
> taking the build configuration's O_ access mode, and returning the
> target configurations's access mode
When memchr is applied on a constant string of no more than the bytes of
a word, inline memchr by checking each byte in the constant string.
int f (int a)
{
return __builtin_memchr ("eE", a, 2) != 0;
}
is simplified to
int f (int a)
{
return (char) a == 'e' || (char) a == 'E';
}
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98469
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 18:50 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
>
> > So ultimately that's something we want to fix, though exactly how,
> > I'm
> > not quite sure; we presumably want to look up the target's
> > definitions
> > of those macros - but I
Jonathan Wakely writes:
> âs External Email
>
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 20:31, thutt--- via Gcc wrote:
> >I am here to solicit ideas on how to further narrow this this
> >down. Is there any undocumented option that I can use to cause the
> >standalone preprocessor to produce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105691
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105824
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Interesting MSVC accepts it too ...
Fortify buffer overflow message reported.
(see https://github.com/earlephilhower/esp-quick-toolchain/issues/36)
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/xtensa/xtensa.md (bswapsi2_internal):
Enlarge the buffer that is obviously smaller than the template
string given to sprintf().
---
On 6/21/22 6:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
The first release candidate for GCC 10.4 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.4.0-RC-20220621/
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.4.0-RC-20220621/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
r10
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022, 20:35 Jonathan Wakely, wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 20:31, thutt--- via Gcc wrote:
> >I am here to solicit ideas on how to further narrow this this
> >down. Is there any undocumented option that I can use to cause the
> >standalone preprocessor to produce
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 20:31, thutt--- via Gcc wrote:
>I am here to solicit ideas on how to further narrow this this
>down. Is there any undocumented option that I can use to cause the
>standalone preprocessor to produce output identical to input?
>Note that '-traditional-cpp'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
Hello folks,
I am not subscribed to this mailing list, so please address
responses directly to me.
I have a program that generates this error:
.c: In function ‘f0’:
.c:117:4: error: this ‘else’ clause does not guard...
[-Werror=misleading-indentation]
117 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050
Bug ID: 106050
Summary: ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106049
Bug ID: 106049
Summary: ICE in gfc_simplify_pack, at fortran/simplify.cc:6481
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106048
Bug ID: 106048
Summary: [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in ubsan_encode_value, at
ubsan.cc:143 / verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> So ultimately that's something we want to fix, though exactly how, I'm
> not quite sure; we presumably want to look up the target's definitions
> of those macros - but I don't think the analyzer has access to the
> cpp_reader instance from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106047
Bug ID: 106047
Summary: ICE in structure_alloc_comps, at
fortran/trans-array.cc:9574
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105807
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #2 from
Hi Immad, thanks for this patch.
Overall, looks like you're making good progress.
Various notes and nitpicks inline below, throughout...
On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 22:00 +0530, Mir Immad wrote:
[...snip...]
>
> diff --git a/gcc/analyzer/analyzer.opt b/gcc/analyzer/analyzer.opt
> index
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:01 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 02:42:20PM -0700, Noah Goldstein wrote:
> > This patch allows for strchr(x, c) to the replace with memchr(x, c,
> > strlen(x) + 1) if strlen(x) has already been computed earlier in the
> > tree.
> >
> > Handles
This patch allows for strchr(x, c) to the replace with memchr(x, c,
strlen(x) + 1) if strlen(x) has already been computed earlier in the
tree.
Handles PR95821: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95821
Since memchr doesn't need to re-find the null terminator it is faster
than strchr.
Hi!
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 03:47:49PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >> >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/medium_offset.c
> >> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/medium_offset.c
> >> >> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> >> >> /* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-* }
Hi, I'd like to ping this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/596654.html
(cc-ing the build machinery maintainers listed in MAINTAINERS this time)
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 3:51 PM Eric Gallager wrote:
>
> So, in investigating PR target/34422, I discovered that the gcc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80637
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
clang accepts this while MSVC rejects this for the same reason as GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80637
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53185
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53185=edit
Updated full testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106046
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 53184
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53184=edit
testcase
> Am 21.06.2022 um 17:16 schrieb Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches
> :
>
> When dr_may_alias_p is called without a loop context, it tries
> to use the tree-affine interface to calculate the difference
> between the two addresses and use that difference to check whether
> the gap between the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105960
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2474c8e09a93027cde39ecb6a53742142c8496ed
commit r12-8501-g2474c8e09a93027cde39ecb6a53742142c8496ed
Author: H.J. Lu
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105651
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105651
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bogus "may overlap" memcpy |[12/13 Regression] bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105651
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cuzdav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106044
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 17:58, François Dumont via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Here is a series of patch to enhance _Hashtable behavior mostly in the
> context of range insertion. I also start considering the problem of
> memory fragmentation in this container with 2 objectives:
>
> - It is easier
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 8:16 AM Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> On Jun 21 2022, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > which seems to be Linux 3.13 and glibc 4.8.4. On that system I see
>
> That's stone age.
I don't know who maintains these systems on the GCC compile farm.
Ian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106046
Bug ID: 106046
Summary: GCC fails to disambiguate call to static member
function when inside a class template
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
This is a patch for extending static analysis support for posix file
descriptor APIs which is a part of my GSoC project. I've written a few
testcases, which are all passing. There are a few TODOs like adding the
copyright header and adding docs to gcc/doc/invoke.texi.
I'm looking for suggestions
diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/gcc/Makefile.in
index b6dcc45a58a..04631f737ea 100644
--- a/gcc/Makefile.in
+++ b/gcc/Makefile.in
@@ -1269,6 +1269,7 @@ ANALYZER_OBJS = \
analyzer/region-model-reachability.o \
analyzer/sm.o \
analyzer/sm-file.o \
+ analyzer/sm-fd.o \
analyzer/sm-malloc.o \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106045
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
> On 6/17/22 10:18 AM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>> Hi Yonghong.
>>
>>> On 6/15/22 1:57 PM, David Faust wrote:
On 6/14/22 22:53, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 6/7/22 2:43 PM, David Faust wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This patch series adds support for:
>>
>> -
Hi!
The i variable is used inside of the parallel in:
#pragma omp simd safelen(32) private (v)
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++)
{
v = 3 * i;
ll[i] = u1 + v * u2[0] + u2[1] + x + y[0] + y[1] + v + h[0] + u3[i];
}
where i is predetermined linear (so while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106045
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85d613da341b76308edea48359a5dbc7061937c4
commit r13-1190-g85d613da341b76308edea48359a5dbc7061937c4
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106038
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu ---
> backwards STV?
There's a pass in x86 backend called STV(scalar to vector, the pass convert
scalar instructions into vector mode when profitable), I guess "backwards STV"
means converting vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105545
Peter Dimov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pdimov at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106038
--- Comment #5 from Noah Goldstein ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> The vectorizer does not anticipate store-merging performing "vectorization"
> in GPRs and thus the scalar cost is off (it also doesn't anticipate the
>
On Jun 21 2022, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> which seems to be Linux 3.13 and glibc 4.8.4. On that system I see
That's stone age.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely
When dr_may_alias_p is called without a loop context, it tries
to use the tree-affine interface to calculate the difference
between the two addresses and use that difference to check whether
the gap between the accesses is known at compile time. However, as the
example in the PR shows, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97936
Petr Sumbera changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sumbera at volny dot cz
--- Comment #19
On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 8:59 AM Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> On Jun 18 2022, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > What target?
>
> aarch64-suse-linux, of course.
Thanks. Sorry for missing that.
> > What is the output of
> >
> > grep loff_t TARGET/libgo/gen-sysinfo.go
>
> type ___loff_t int64
> type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106033
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106033
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7905a9ac26707ed6ac49e40e35a9c8755c6574e3
commit r13-1189-g7905a9ac26707ed6ac49e40e35a9c8755c6574e3
Author: Ian Lance Taylor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105913
--- Comment #5 from Marc Poulhiès ---
Oh, nice, should have checked before commenting then ! Thanks !
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 4:46 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 7:51 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:03 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 12:25 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Disallow siball when calling ifunc functions with PIC
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 9:41 AM Jiang, Haochen wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Uros Bizjak
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 3:06 PM
> > To: Jiang, Haochen
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Liu, Hongtao
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386: Add syscall to enable AMX for latest kernels
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106044
--- Comment #2 from Chris Uzdavinis ---
Even marginally simpler:
#include
auto f() {
return "_" + std::string(" ");
}
Originally I marked it as tree-optimization since it's only with -O3, but it
could be an issue in the standard library
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 7:51 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:03 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 12:25 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > Disallow siball when calling ifunc functions with PIC register so that
> > > PIC register can be restored.
> > >
> > > gcc/
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106022
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 53169 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > This patch multiplies the vector store cost by the number of scalar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106036
--- Comment #2 from Kacper Słomiński ---
Okay, this seems to have been a false alarm, sorry for that! Our C library was
missing the typedef for intptr_t in unistd.h, which POSIX does specify. After
adding that, libgcc compiled without problems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106045
Bug ID: 106045
Summary: Incorrect testcase in libgomp.c/target-31.c at -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On 21/06/2022 15:24, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 03:13:19PM +0200, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello,
I noticed that several division related routines provided by libgcc such as
__divdi3, __moddi3 and __umoddi3 have references to _Unwind_Resume for the
sparc-rtems target. For
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 2:15 PM
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd ; ja...@redhat.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2]middle-end: Support recognition of three-way
> max/min.
>
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022, Tamar Christina wrote:
I missed we documented this as unimplemented, when I implemented it.
--
Nathan SidwellFrom f1fcd6e3ad911945bc3c24a3a5c7ea99b910121e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Sidwell
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 06:23:11 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] doc: Document module language-linkage supported
I missed we
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 03:13:19PM +0200, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed that several division related routines provided by libgcc such as
> __divdi3, __moddi3 and __umoddi3 have references to _Unwind_Resume for the
> sparc-rtems target. For example:
That is because:
ifeq
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 9:36 AM
> > To: Tamar Christina
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd ; ja...@redhat.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]middle-end: Support recognition of three-way
> >
Hello,
I noticed that several division related routines provided by libgcc such
as __divdi3, __moddi3 and __umoddi3 have references to _Unwind_Resume
for the sparc-rtems target. For example:
.file "libgcc2.c"
! GNU C17 (GCC) version 13.0.0 20220621 (experimental) [master
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 09:28:00 +0200
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 2:34 AM Dave Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > At some point between GCC 9 and GCC 12, the preprocessor started behaving
> > differently. Before if GCC were launched as /lib/cpp or /usr/bin/cpp (I
> > think) it would
Gerald Pfeifer writes:
> Hi Gaius,
>
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022, Gaius Mulley wrote:
>> here is a proposed entry describing a new branch m2link containing the
>> new scaffold development for modula-2. As the description says it is
>> expected that this branch be short lived - terminating once
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105913
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to Marc Poulhiès from comment #3)
> Fixed in github, but not yet in gcc's repository AFAIK.
It is, as of today, 10:33 UTC, when I did the 'git push'. ;-).
(If there's more to do, then please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104872
--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Buch ---
Bug is still present in GCC 12.1 and current trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106044
--- Comment #1 from Chris Uzdavinis ---
only in c++20, too.
Am 2022-06-21 um 09:34 schrieb Sören Tempel via Gcc-patches:
Hi,
The problem is: glibc defines loff_t in sys/types.h, not fcntl.h (where musl
defines it). I falsely assumed that the newly committed AC_CHECK_TYPES
invocation would include fcntl.h *in addition to* AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT.
However, as
mand line:
g++12 -O3 --std=c++20 -Wrestrict source.cpp
Output:
In file included from
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20220621/include/c++/13.0.0/string:40,
from :1:
In static member function 'static constexpr std::char_traits::char_type*
std::char_traits::copy(char_type*, const ch
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 12:05 PM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2022/6/21 15:33, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:06 AM xionghuluo(罗雄虎) via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Bootstrap and regression tested pass on x86_64-linux-gnu, OK for master?
> >
> > OK
Status
==
The GCC 10 branch is frozen for the release of GCC 10.4 with
a first release candidate published. All changes require
release manager approval.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P1
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
