Hi Harald,
OK for mainline. It is sufficiently small that, if there is any fallout in
the next weeks, it can easily be reverted without great impact.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 at 20:46, Harald Anlauf via Fortran
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> the attached patch fixes an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599
catsith at me dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||catsith at me dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109397
catsith at me dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Hi,
The test case gcc.target/powerpc/pr83677.c was written for
LE environment, this patch is to make it work on BE as well.
Tested on BE and LE well, I'm going to push this soon if no
objections.
BR,
Kewen
-
PR testsuite/108815
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
*
Hi Segher,
Thanks for the review!
on 2023/4/3 19:44, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 05:55:04PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> As PR108807 exposes, the current handling in function
>> rs6000_expand_vector_set_var_p9 doesn't take care of big
>> endianness. Currently the
There's a potential performance issue when backend returns some
unreasonable value for the mode which can be never be allocate with
reg class.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu{-m32,}.
Ok for trunk(or GCC14 stage1)?
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR rtl-optimization/109351
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108699
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cdd2d6643f7fef40e335a7027edfea7276cde608
commit r13-6993-gcdd2d6643f7fef40e335a7027edfea7276cde608
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Mon Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108807
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d634e6088f139ee700d79ec73b1ad6436096a6ff
commit r13-6994-gd634e6088f139ee700d79ec73b1ad6436096a6ff
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Mon Apr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109397
--- Comment #2 from catsith at me dot com ---
Thank you. Looks like this is a duplicate of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99599 then. I believe I can
workaround my problem by using std::enable_if_t instead of concepts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109277
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 54806
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54806=edit
patch to allow with -fpermissive
Here's an (untested) possible approach to that. I'm about to be away for a
week,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107484
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107484
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0dfbb28a9549c2503204b0338bf550f1bff9c681
commit r13-6992-g0dfbb28a9549c2503204b0338bf550f1bff9c681
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
-- 8< --
Here friend matching tries to find a matching non-template friend and fails,
so we mark the friend as a template specialization to be determined later.
Then cplus_decl_attributes tries again to find a matching function and gets
confused by
/* snip */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/loongarch/add-const.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/loongarch/add-const.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..3a9f72fe83d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/loongarch/add-const.c
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109397
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
See http://wg21.link/cwg2369 also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109397
Bug ID: 109397
Summary: [concepts] Unexpected "satisfaction of atomic
constraint ... depends on itself"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Jiawei wrote:
> + // Zfinx is conflict with float extensions.
> + if (TARGET_ZFINX && TARGET_HARD_FLOAT)
> +error ("z*inx is conflict with float extensions");
> +
While I'm not a native English speaker, "is conflict with"
doesn't sound grammatically correct. Perhaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108767
--- Comment #1 from Geoffrey ---
Hi, David, do you have any idea about why -O2 can lead to a FP?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108100
--- Comment #1 from Geoffrey ---
Hi, David. Could you spare some time to explain why GSA cannot handle `||`?
Will you fix this? I'd like to contribute. Thanks a lot!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109390
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#2127
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109390
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109387
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88245
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109396
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109383
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109392
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
here is a better testcase which does not use vfork which is implicit
returns_twice:
```
typedef short __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (64))) V;
V v, w;
void g(void) __attribute__((returns_twice));
V foo (V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-04
Ever confirmed|0
On Mon, 2023-04-03 at 18:46 +0200, Benjamin Priour wrote:
> Following last mail, a classic I forgot to link my draft !
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MaLDo-Rt8yrJIvC1MO8SmFc6fp4eRQM_JeSdv-1kbsc/edit?usp=sharing
Some notes:
* The document still has some notes in italics marked "[RFC]"
Sorry, I messed subject in my previous two emails :( so I am sending it
again.
I have completed a draft proposal for this project. I will appreciate Jan,
Martin, or anybody else feedback on the same.
Here is the link to my proposal
-- Forwarded message -
From: Rishi Raj
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 05:57
Subject: Re: [GSOC] Submission of draft proposal.
To: Jan Hubicka
Cc: ,
oops, I forgot to change the subject in previous email :(
Thanks, Jan for the Reply! I have completed a draft proposal for this
project.
Thanks, Jan for the Reply! I have completed a draft proposal for this
project. I will appreciate your's, Martin's, or anybody else feedback on
the same.
Here is the link to my proposal
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r9kzsU96kOYfIhWZx62jx4ALG-J_aJs5U0sDpwFUtts/edit?usp=sharing
On Tue, 4 Apr
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > When adjusting calls to reflect instrumentation we failed to handle
> > calls to aliases since they appear to have no body. Instead resort
> > to symtab node availability. The patch also avoids touching
> > internal function calls in a more
Hello,
> While going through the patch and simple-object.c I understood that the
> file simple-object.c is used to handle the object file format. However,
> this file does not contain all the architecture information required for
> LTO object files, so the workaround used in the patch is to read
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109300
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109300
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c37ed38ada788ae410c48ec6d8c9b5d9f32ab8cf
commit r13-6989-gc37ed38ada788ae410c48ec6d8c9b5d9f32ab8cf
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109396
Bug ID: 109396
Summary: Winit-self doesn't warn when std::move()-d
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #36 from Martin Uecker ---
Am Montag, dem 03.04.2023 um 20:29 + schrieb qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
>
> --- Comment #35 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to
On 3 April 2023 21:50:49 CEST, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>Hi Bernhard,
>
>there is neither context nor a related PR with a testcase showing
>that this patch fixes issues seen there.
Yes, i forgot to mention the PR:
PR fortran/68800
I did not construct individual test cases but it should be obvious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Łukasiewicz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Yes and that is still a VLA in terms of C99 definition ...
Indeed, but we only want to prevent automatic VLA, all other instances of VM
types are even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note GCC's C++ front-end even rejects VLA definitions like that for parameters
so I don't know how useful they are really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Yes and that is still a VLA in terms of C99 definition ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:16:20PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> > Remove ice-on-invalid-code as I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Łukasiewicz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Łukasiewicz from comment #4)
> > So there is not way of detecting automatic VLA in "debug release"?
>
> -Wvla works.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Łukasiewicz from comment #4)
> So there is not way of detecting automatic VLA in "debug release"?
-Wvla works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108497
--- Comment #4 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Not now nor in the near future. After all, it isn't a regression, so
> couldn't be fixed during stage4 anyway.
This bug affects GCC>=8. GCC<=7 work fine on this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Łukasiewicz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Łukasiewicz from comment #2)
> > Passing `-ftree-vrp` doesn't activate it either
>
> Because of another part of the documentation:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Łukasiewicz from comment #2)
> Passing `-ftree-vrp` doesn't activate it either
Because of another part of the documentation:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Łukasiewicz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is by designed and is even documented:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-
> Wvla-larger-than_003d
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> No.
Then the unwinder cannot unwind through it and the test cannot pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109395
Bug ID: 109395
Summary: -Wvla-larger-than has no effect when compiling without
optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2023-04-03 4:46 p.m., ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374
>
> --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> As far as I can tell, this test
Hi Adi!
I've not been able yet to review your items in detail, but it's very good
that you're discussing your ideas!
At least a few comments:
On 2023-04-01T03:16:28+, "Prasad, Adi via Gcc" wrote:
> Tobias wrote:
>> [...] permit something like -foffload=host instead of having to
>> specify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> As far as I can tell, this test has always failed on both 32-bit linux and
> hpux.
Does libgcc/config/pa/milli64.S contain CFI directives or EH tables?
On 4/3/23 10:49, Patrick Palka wrote:
This testcase demonstrates we can legitimately enter satisfaction with
an ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT argument, which is problematic because we can't
store such arguments in the satisfaction cache (or any other hash table).
Since this appears to be possible only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW: the "un-dead code" was introduced with r10-2912-g70570ec1927450 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
--- Comment #35 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #34)
> Created attachment 54787 [details]
> patch for C FE to add size expressions to VM types in structs
thanks a lot for the patch.
could you please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
I'm not sure what is expected here:
(gdb) r
Starting program: /home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/gnat/div_zero.exe
warning: Unable to find libthread_db matching inferior's thread library, thread
On 4/3/23 12:28, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/28/23 13:37, Patrick Palka wrote:
Now that we resolve non-dependent variable template-ids ahead of time,
cp_finish_decl needs to handle a new invalid situation: we can end up
trying to instantiate a variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
While going through the patch and simple-object.c I understood that the
file simple-object.c is used to handle the object file format. However,
this file does not contain all the architecture information required for
LTO object files, so the workaround used in the patch is to read the
crtbegin.o
Hi!
I've missed one of my recent range-op-float.cc changes (likely the
r13-6967 one) caused
FAIL: libphobos.phobos/std/math/algebraic.d execution test
FAIL: libphobos.phobos_shared/std/math/algebraic.d execution test
regressions, distilled into a C testcase below.
In the testcase, we have
!(u >=
Hi Bernhard,
there is neither context nor a related PR with a testcase showing
that this patch fixes issues seen there.
On 4/2/23 17:05, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via Gcc-patches wrote:
From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
Cc: fort...@gcc.gnu.org
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* array.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104349
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
Dear all,
the attached patch fixes an ICE-on-invalid for a PARAMETER expression
where the character length was a MODULE variable. The ICE seemed
strange, as we were catching related erroneous code for declarations in
programs or subroutines. Removing a seemingly bogus check of restricted
With the relatively new warnings (11..) affecting VLA bounds,
I now get a lot of false positives with -Wall. In general, I find
the new warnings very useful, but they seem a bit too
aggressive and some minor tweaks are needed, otherwise they are
too noisy. This patch suggests two changes:
1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104349
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78212
John DelSignore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jdelsignore at perforce dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109394
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109394
Bug ID: 109394
Summary: list-directed read of character from complex number
Product: gcc
Version: og11 (devel/omp/gcc-11)
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 11:58, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 12:46, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> > While digging thru aarch64_expand_vector_init, I noticed it gives
> > priority to loading a constant first:
> > /* Initialise a vector which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109392
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109393
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note sometimes -fwrapv will optimize things because it can assume that overflow
is defined as wrapping and this is one case that is true. Yes it sounds counter
intuitive but it is true. Even re-association
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109393
Bug ID: 109393
Summary: Very trivial address calculation does not fold
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
Hello,
On Sat, Apr 01 2023, Prasad, Adi via Gcc wrote:
> Hi Tobias and Thomas,
>
> My apologies for the double email; I have an unrelated administrative
> ask. Would it be possible to provide any past successful GSoC
> proposals? I'm interested in any thnigs GCC specifically is looking
> for in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109392
Bug ID: 109392
Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE in tree_vec_extract, at
tree-vect-generic.cc:177
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
Following last mail, a classic I forgot to link my draft !
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MaLDo-Rt8yrJIvC1MO8SmFc6fp4eRQM_JeSdv-1kbsc/edit?usp=sharing
Best,
Benjamin.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 6:44 PM Benjamin Priour wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:38 AM David Malcolm
Hi David,
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:38 AM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> To be fair, C ones can be as well; the analyzer's exploded graphs tend
> to get very big on anything but the most trivial examples.
>
>
>
[...snip...]
>
> Indeed - you'll have to do a lot of looking at gimple IR dumps, what
>
On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 13:03, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the slow reply.
> >
> > Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
> > > Unfortunately it regresses code-gen for the following case:
> > >
> > > svint32_t f(int32x4_t x)
> > > {
> > > return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104272
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Following the allocation itself, we get:
solver._data.dim[0].lbound = 1;
solver._data.dim[0].ubound = 2;
solver._data.dim[0].stride = 1;
solver._data.offset = -1;
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/28/23 13:37, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > Now that we resolve non-dependent variable template-ids ahead of time,
> > cp_finish_decl needs to handle a new invalid situation: we can end up
> > trying to instantiate a variable template with deduced return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109384
--- Comment #3 from Damian ---
Hello Jakub,
withe the change "%<-march=%s%>: z*inx conflicts with floating-point extensions
?"
the build works again
Best regards
Damian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104272
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
Hi Tobias and Thomas - just wondering if you've had a chance to look at this?
Thanks,
Adi
From: Prasad, Adi
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 5:16 am
To: Tobias Burnus ; Thomas Schwinge
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: GSoC Separate Host Process Offloading
Hi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109361
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 54804
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54804=edit
v1 of patch for this
This patch works, but it also enables the output on stderr, and I see
significant differences
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 03 2023, Eric Feng via Gcc wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> I’m happy to collaborate on this project together — it would be great
> to have your experience with CPython internals on the team.
>
While I normally welcome collaboration, please note that GSoC rules and
reasonable caution
Hi!
On 2023-02-13T15:20:07+, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> On 13/02/2023 14:38, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> On 2022-03-08T11:30:55+, Hafiz Abid Qadeer
>> wrote:
>>> From: Andrew Stubbs
>>>
>>> Add a new option. It will be used in follow-up patches.
>>
>>> --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>>> +++
This testcase demonstrates we can legitimately enter satisfaction with
an ARGUMENT_PACK_SELECT argument, which is problematic because we can't
store such arguments in the satisfaction cache (or any other hash table).
Since this appears to be possible only during constrained auto deduction
for a
Hi Steven,
I’m happy to collaborate on this project together — it would be great
to have your experience with CPython internals on the team.
> And by the way, I can get to work long before the start-coding time point of
> GSoC timeline.
I can be involved in some capacity before the
Hi!
On 2019-11-26T22:49:21+0800, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> this is a reorg of the last non-contiguous arrays patch.
(Sorry, this is still not the master branch integration email...)
Just a small clean-up, to simplify other changes that I'm working on:
On 2019-11-26T22:49:21+0800, Chung-Lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g. PR93385.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Thanks for bringing this to my attention Dave! I’m happy to
collaborate on this project with Steven. I will reply in more detail
in the other thread.
Best,
Eric
On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 7:28 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2023-04-01 at 19:49 -0400, Eric Feng wrote:
> > > For the task above,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109388
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109388
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a75f0a02e5006e081b335acd36300a85bef8eb8
commit r13-6987-g9a75f0a02e5006e081b335acd36300a85bef8eb8
Author: Gaius Mulley
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109303
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:da3fd01757297c1d20cf3dcd76046488da737569
commit r13-6986-gda3fd01757297c1d20cf3dcd76046488da737569
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109303
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109389
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note Debian (and Ubuntu) has a patch to their GCC which does cause the default
arguments to ld to include --as-needed . That is why you are seeing a
difference between gcc and clang. Note if you build GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109389
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note for shared libraries it might the case the gcc you using defaults to
passing --as-needed to the linker and the clang driver does not.
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
