2011-12-13 Rainer Orth r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de
* gcc-interface/Makefile.in (%86 linux%):
(LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS_32): Split off from LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS.
(LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS_64): New.
(LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS): Add either depending on multilib.
OK, thanks. You
Richard, Jason, are you ok with just unsetting DECL_WEAK?
For now, yes.
I will come up with a suitable testcase for Patrick's case.
Once there's a testcase, we can figure out why the other patch didn't work.
Jason
Hi Jason.
I have made a testcase from Patrick's, and am committing the
Hello Everyone,
This patch is for the C Compiler in Cilkplus branch. It is an
extension of the following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00691.html. This patch will
implement an N-dimension array notation for assignment expressions.
Thanking You,
Yours
Hello Everyone,
This patch is for the C-Compiler in Cilkplus GCC branch. It is an
extension of the patch given in this submission:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01397.html. it implements a
polynomial of N-dimension array notation.
Thanking You,
Yours Sincerely,
Balaji
This small patch fixes a build regression on GNU/kFreeBSD.
--
Robert Millan
2011-12-19 Robert Millan r...@gnu.org
Fix build regression on GNU/kFreeBSD.
* config/kfreebsd-gnu.h (GNU_USER_DYNAMIC_LINKERX32): New macro.
--- a/src/gcc/config/kfreebsd-gnu.h~ 2011-07-21 17:31:44.0 +0200
The code I put in back when I implemented list-initialization rejects
additional user-defined conversions when considering the copy parm of a
copy/move constructor, in order to avoid ambiguity when a nested
braced-init-list could initialize either the copy parm or the parm of
another
I have committed the attached patch as obvious (Rev. 182497).
gfortran merged the symbol of a local label like:
label_name: block
end block label_name
with a later-declared procedure with the same name (subroutine
label_name()) which lead to an ICE and interesting code paths.
Built,
On 12/18/2011 05:21 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
OK everywhere without the cap and with the same test on ARG2:
If a testcase doesn't need fancy options, it must go in gcc.c-torture/compile.
OK. I've checked in this version, which addresses both those issues.
-Sandra
2011-12-19 Sandra
Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com writes:
Hi,
The problem here is mips64-linux-gnu produces similar output like
IRIX does except there might be some .cfi_startproc there. This patch
fixes it by allow an optional .cfi_startproc and by always using that
format for mips*-*-* .
OK? Tested on
On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Michael Zolotukhin wrote:
Thanks, Richard!
Is anyone else's approve needed for commit?
Michael
On 19 December 2011 20:55, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/19/2011 12:47 AM, Michael Zolotukhin wrote:
Ok, those were just attempts to adjust
The recent(ish) improvements to widening multiplication support have
disabled madd and msub for fixed-point types. The problem is that the
optab is now chosen based on:
optype = build_nonstandard_integer_type (from_mode, from_unsigned1);
which is specific to integer types.
The only time
As the subject says. Not sure how this slipped through; all the other
ext-* tests have it.
Tested on mips-sde-elf and applied.
Richard
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/mips/ext-2.c: Add NOMIPS16.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/mips/ext-2.c
As per the subject. This test now relies on the tree-level widening
multiplication optimisation, which only runs at -O2 and above.
(It used to happen in expand instead.)
Tested on mips-sde-elf and applied.
Richard
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.target/mips/mult-1.c: Require -O2.
Index:
forward_propagate_subreg has code to optimise sequences like:
(set (reg:DI X) (*_extend:DI (reg:SI Y)))
(... (subreg:SI (reg:DI X)) ...)
by replacing (subreg:SI (reg:DI X)) with (reg:SI Y). However, there is
a special case to stop this happening if Y is loaded from memory and the
Just missing a case.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit cd8d1cb9501d6151febfba17c240f8bbba2d25af
Author: Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
Date: Mon Dec 19 16:28:19 2011 -0500
PR c++/51530
* pt.c (unify): Handle NULLPTR_TYPE.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c
Reviewers: xur, jingyu, shenhan, bjanakiraman_google.com,
Message:
This merges xur's patch to our mobile release branch. LGTM and I will
submit it.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/5491078/
Affected files:
Mgcc-4_6-mobile
M
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
forward_propagate_subreg has code to optimise sequences like:
(set (reg:DI X) (*_extend:DI (reg:SI Y)))
(... (subreg:SI (reg:DI X)) ...)
by replacing (subreg:SI (reg:DI X)) with (reg:SI Y). However,
Hello!
This problem was uncovered by a libgo testsuite, where SIGSEGV handler
in html/template test resulted in
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
libgo_html.template.Error.pN25_libgo_html.template.Error (e=0x0) at error.go:185
185 if e.Line != 0 {
While x86_64
On 12/19/2011 11:07 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Just missing a case.
Indeed. Thanks!
Paolo.
On 12/19/2011 02:14 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
(gdb) bt
#0 _Unwind_RaiseException (exc=0xf840453300) at
../../../gcc-svn/trunk/libgcc/unwind.inc:135
#1 0x02559a8c in __go_unwind_stack () at
../../../gcc-svn/trunk/libgo/runtime/go-unwind.c:175
#2 0x02556d44 in __go_panic
Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
forward_propagate_subreg has code to optimise sequences like:
(set (reg:DI X) (*_extend:DI (reg:SI Y)))
(... (subreg:SI (reg:DI X)) ...)
by replacing
somehow I missed these fails when I backported the __promote changes
to the 4.6 branch:
* testsuite/ext/type_traits/remove_unsigned_integer_neg.cc: Adjust
dg-error line numbers.
* testsuite/ext/type_traits/add_unsigned_floating_neg.cc: Likewise.
*
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/19/2011 02:14 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
(gdb) bt
#0 _Unwind_RaiseException (exc=0xf840453300) at
../../../gcc-svn/trunk/libgcc/unwind.inc:135
#1 0x02559a8c in __go_unwind_stack () at
We don't have allocator_traits in 4.6 so this patch adds a test for
whether we can call allocator::construct(p) with a single argument and
calls _Construct(p) if not.
PR libstdc++/51626
* include/bits/stl_uninitialized.h (_Construct_default_a): Define
overloaded functions
On 2011/12/19 22:09:18, asharif1 wrote:
This merges xur's patch to our mobile release branch. LGTM and I will
submit it.
OK
http://codereview.appspot.com/5491078/
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Here g++ is invoked without an absolute path, so if you have an older
version of g++ in your path that does not grok -Wno-narrowing yet that
will fail, won't it? I assume that's why only some like you and me are
seeing this, but not all of us.
Yes,
Committed to both google/gcc-4_6-google and google/gcc-4_6-mobile
(mobile release branch).
Diego,
I just realize we need this patch for google/gcc-main, since it is a
local patch. OK?
Thanks,
Jing
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 11-12-14 13:43 ,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:54:36PM +0100, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
PR debug/49951
* g++.dg/gcov/gcov-2.C: New test.
This change doesn't look like New test, just an adjustment to it...
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov-2.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gcov/gcov-2.C
index
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 11:17 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/30/2011 05:13 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
The library is written in C++, so in theory we can use the real atomic
templates, etc. Except that we have the same horrid problem finding the
C++ headers as did for type_traits,
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:54:36PM +0100, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
PR debug/49951
* g++.dg/gcov/gcov-2.C: New test.
This change doesn't look like New test, just an adjustment to it...
Correct. Below is the adjusted patch.
gcc/cp/
PR
On 12/19/2011 02:58 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
In the particular case (the validated loads technique used in
method-gl.cc, load(), store(), and validate()), we actually do not need
to have loads or stores to be really atomic, but need the compiler to
treat them as if they were atomics wrt. to
Reviewers: Diego Novillo, shenhan, jingyu, bjanakiraman_google.com,
Message:
Please review this on behalf of shenhan@.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/5496077/
Affected files:
M gcc-4_6-mobile/gcc/ChangeLog.google-4_6
M gcc-4_6-mobile/gcc/cfgexpand.c
M
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 15:17 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 12/19/2011 02:58 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
In the particular case (the validated loads technique used in
method-gl.cc, load(), store(), and validate()), we actually do not need
to have loads or stores to be really atomic, but
Hi,
thus, as explained by Jason in the audit trail, the reason why we are
ICE-ing here and failing to provide satisfactory diagnostics is that we
are not checking for virtual base classes, which are explicitly
forbidden in C++11 for constexpr constructors.
Thus I'm simply doing the below,
On Dec 19, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I've just added a PR reference to the ChangeLog entry. I don't think it's
the kind of thing that should be backported to branches, but I'm never
too sure whether that means the bug should be closed as fixed or not.
Closed, fixed, known to
OK.
Jason
Correct. Below is the adjusted patch.
OK.
Jason
201 - 237 of 237 matches
Mail list logo
