Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

To the guy who falsely claimed MIPS fails to provide an add with carry instruction, a google search in 1 minute finds this: stackoverflow.com/questions/1281806/adding-two-64-bit-numbers-in-assembly I defy you to find any processor not providing add with carry, (And I'm not talking about semantic

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

OK, you just said you've used packed nybble arrays a couple of times. Multiplying you by 100,000 that proves if you put it in GCC, you'd save 200,000 programmer hours, which is equivalent to saving over 2 lives. You just said you've written your own double-length multiply. Same proof. Thank you

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

> OK, you just said you've used packed nybble arrays a couple of times. > Multiplying you by 100,000 that proves if you put it in GCC, > you'd save 200,000 programmer hours, which is equivalent to saving > over 2 lives. I would suggest that you spend time learning basic principles about language

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

And hell, GCC already includes a lot of really really obscure builtin functions which are one hell of a lot less common & useful than multiply-hi I merely cited div(a,b) because it was one of the least obscure among them. How about freaking "isgraph" and "_mm_set1_epi32"? I mean how can you

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

I am assuming you intended to post this on the mailing list, so I have restored the addresses. On 26/07/16 19:55, Warren D Smith wrote: > To the guy who falsely claimed MIPS fails to provide an add with carry > instruction, > a google search in 1 minute finds this: > >

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

It *isn't* "putting every possible feature into every language." Did I ever advocate that? It's "putting a feature that you already put there, into the language, just no longer arbitrarily selecting certain integer sizes and excluding others." Am I making syntax more complicated? No. I am if

Re: [gimplefe] hacking pass manager

On 20 July 2016 at 18:28, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >> On 20 July 2016 at 11:34, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Prasad

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

> And hell, GCC already includes a lot of really really obscure > builtin functions which are one hell of a lot less common & useful > than multiply-hi Which exactly proves the point that people are making: whether something is "common & useful" is rarely the criteria that's used in deciding

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

Ok, I'm not affiliated with gcc, nor a committer, I just happen to work on a port to a local architecture. Your first posts were funny to read, and you ignored the answers, and now it's getting old. Not talking for the gcc community, I suggest that you go away and come back when you have code

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

> It *isn't* "putting every possible feature into every language." > Did I ever advocate that? Yes. When you say "X is a useful feature, therefore we should put it into language Y", you are indeed implicitly advocating that. Because if that were *not* the case, then saying that X is *useful*

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

>> But it failed to fully correct the error >> because, at least with gcc's implementation of stdint.h, only 8,16,32, >> and 64 are provided. >These cover the needs of virtually everyone in virtually all cases. --a bold claim, made with zero evidence presented. But since we know that even 40

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Warren D Smith wrote: > > To the guy who falsely claimed MIPS fails to provide an add with carry > instruction, > a google search in 1 minute finds this: > > stackoverflow.com/questions/1281806/adding-two-64-bit-numbers-in-assembly > > I

Re: [gimplefe] hacking pass manager

On 27 July 2016 at 00:20, Prasad Ghangal wrote: > On 20 July 2016 at 18:28, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> wrote: >>> On 20 July 2016 at 11:34, Richard Biener

gcc-5-20160726 is now available

Snapshot gcc-5-20160726 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20160726/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5

Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

1. Gcc with stdint.h already provides such nice predefined types as uint8_t. Sizes provided are 8,16,32, and 64. In some sense uint1_t is available too (stdbool.h) but at least on my machine stdbool uses 8-bits to store a bool, e.g. an array of 1000 bools takes 8000 bits, which is asinine and kind

Re: Need help with PR71976 combine.c::get_last_value returns a wrong result

On 26.07.2016 14:51, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:14:49PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: which returns const0_rtx because reg 18 is set in insn 43 to const0_rtx. Total outcome is that the right shift of reg:DI 18 is transformed to a no-op move and cancelled out in the

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On 26/07/16 14:31, Warren D Smith wrote: > However, why not provide access to double-precision multiply and > add-with-carry (subtract with borrow? shift-left?) in the same fashion? >twofer x = mul(a,b); would cause x.hi and x.lo to be computed. >twofer x = addwithcarry(a,b) ditto.

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On 26 July 2016 at 14:31, Warren D Smith wrote: > 1. Gcc with stdint.h already > provides such nice predefined types as uint8_t. > Sizes provided are 8,16,32, and 64. > In some sense uint1_t is available too (stdbool.h) > but at least on my machine stdbool uses 8-bits to store a bool, Because

GCC 4.9.4 Status Report (2016-07-26), branch frozen for release

The 4.9 branch is now frozen for the final GCC 4.9.4 release, I will announce GCC 4.9.4 RC1 once it has built. Richard.

Re: Need help with PR71976 combine.c::get_last_value returns a wrong result

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:14:49PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > >>which returns const0_rtx because reg 18 is set in insn 43 to const0_rtx. > >>Total outcome is that the right shift of reg:DI 18 is transformed to a > >>no-op move and cancelled out in the remainder. > > > >Why does

Re: Need help with PR71976 combine.c::get_last_value returns a wrong result

On 25.07.2016 23:05, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 02:28:28PM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: (insn 43 31 44 2 (set (reg:QI 18 r18) (const_int 0 [0])) bug-combin.c:29 56 {movqi_insn} (nil)) (insn 51 50 52 2 (set (reg:QI 16 r16) (const_int 40 [0x28]))

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Warren D Smith wrote: > > Only sizes which are an integer number of bytes with no padding bits. > > wikipedia: Wikipedia is not the standard (and, to be clear, C99 before TC3 had various defects in the specification as well, so you should not refer to pre-TC3 versions

GCC 4.9.4 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

A release candidate for the last release from the GCC 4.9 branch, GCC 4.9.4, is available from ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9.4-RC-20160726/ and shortly its mirrors. I have sofar bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Please test it and report

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Warren D Smith wrote: > However, why not provide access to double-precision multiply and > add-with-carry (subtract with borrow? shift-left?) in the same fashion? >twofer x = mul(a,b); would cause x.hi and x.lo to be computed. >twofer x = addwithcarry(a,b)

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On 7/26/16, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Warren D Smith wrote: > >> (And in the case of uint4_t, it actually would not even BE an >> "extension" since as I said, >> the standard already allows providing other sizes.) > > Only sizes which are an integer

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On 7/26/16, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 26 July 2016 at 14:31, Warren D Smith wrote: >> 1. Gcc with stdint.h already >> provides such nice predefined types as uint8_t. >> Sizes provided are 8,16,32, and 64. >> In some sense uint1_t is available too (stdbool.h) >> but at

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Warren D Smith wrote: > (And in the case of uint4_t, it actually would not even BE an > "extension" since as I said, > the standard already allows providing other sizes.) Only sizes which are an integer number of bytes with no padding bits. -- Joseph S. Myers

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On 26/07/16 15:37, Warren D Smith wrote: > --the reason I am suggesting this to this forum, is I probably am not capable > of > recoding GCC myself. > Why not learn from your own history, and do that again, with these two > extensions? > (And in the case of uint4_t, it actually would not even BE

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On 07/26/16 16:55, Warren D Smith wrote: And they said "only if available in implementation" which gcc chose to interpret as "we're not going to make other sizes available, hahahaha." "if available in implementation" probably means "if supported by the underlying hardware". So, if your

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

--mind-boggling. So they actually intentionally made the language worse in the C11 TC3 revision versus the C99 standard. Sigh. It's really hard to get compiler and language guys to do anything. I suggest the most stunningly obvious idea, they tell me I am an idiot. Then years and years later,

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 10:37 -0400, Warren D Smith wrote: > Also, I know on some machines to access a byte you have to get a word > (larger than 8 bits) > from memory, do shifts and masks. So clearly you already do that > inside gcc. > It therefore is trivial for you to do uint4_t also, because

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Warren D Smith wrote: > --mind-boggling. > So they actually intentionally made the language worse > in the C11 TC3 revision versus the C99 standard. There is no such thing as C11 TC3. All the relevant requirements about being integer numbers of bytes are present in the

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On 26/07/16 16:37, Warren D Smith wrote: You would get on far better here if you tried a little politeness and respect, rather than anger, accusations and confrontation. The C standards were written by a group of very smart and experienced people, refined over a long time based on real-world

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

On 26/07/16 16:55, Warren D Smith wrote: > On 7/26/16, Joseph Myers wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Warren D Smith wrote: >> >>> (And in the case of uint4_t, it actually would not even BE an >>> "extension" since as I said, >>> the standard already allows providing other

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Warren D Smith wrote: > > ... > Sigh. It's really hard to get compiler and language guys to do anything. I find it puzzling that you appear to think that insulting your audience is the best way to influence them. > ... > There is

[Bug c/72687] New: Avg antivirus tech Support(+(1-855-990-5999)))number usa customer service phone number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72687 Bug ID: 72687 Summary: Avg antivirus tech Support(+(1-855-990-5999)))number usa customer service phone number Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/72698] ICE in lhd_incomplete_type_error, at langhooks.c:205

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72698 --- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- This variant seems to work : $ cat z3.f90 program p character(:), allocatable :: z allocate (z, source=repeat('', 4)) print *, len(z), ' >>' // z //

[Bug c/72705] New: Netgear Router Tech support Number@1 800-653-1176@ Netgear Wireless router tech support number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72705 Bug ID: 72705 Summary: Netgear Router Tech support Number@1 800-653-1176@ Netgear Wireless router tech support number Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/72686] New: Avg Support(+(1-855-990-5999)))customer service phone number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72686 Bug ID: 72686 Summary: Avg Support(+(1-855-990-5999)))customer service phone number Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/71779] [5/6/7 regression] isl miscompiled with -mabi=ilp32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71779 --- Comment #15 from Bernd Edlinger --- patch posted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg01742.html

Re: [PATCH 1/3] (v2) On-demand locations within string-literals

On 26/07/16 18:11, David Malcolm wrote: gcc/ChangeLog: * gcc.c (cpp_options): Rename string to... (cpp_options_): ...this, to avoid clashing with struct in cpplib.h. It seems to me that you need this because now gcc.c includes cpplib.h via input.h, which seems wrong.

[Bug c++/72457] [7 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72457 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/72457] [6/7 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72457 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Target

[Bug fortran/72051] gfortran bug - internal compiler error

; Wadud. It compiles with gcc version 4.9.4 20160726 (prerelease) (GCC) gcc version 5.4.1 20160726 (GCC) I don't have 5.3.1 and don't intend to install it.

[Bug fortran/72051] gfortran bug - internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051 --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 39024 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39024=edit Pre-processed source file Minimal command line: gfortran-5 pr72051.f90 -fcheck=mem

[Bug c/72691] New: Cisco Router support @1 844-330-2330@ Cisco router tech support number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72691 Bug ID: 72691 Summary: Cisco Router support @1 844-330-2330@ Cisco router tech support number Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/72415] [concepts] ICE in satisfy_predicate_constraint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72415 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [PATCH] Remove special streaming of builtins

On July 26, 2016 7:26:46 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Richard Biener >wrote: >> >> So I needed to fix that builtins appearing in BLOCK_VARs and the >solution >> I came up with accidentially disabled streaming via the

[PATCH] Fix wrong code on aarch64 due to paradoxical subreg

Hi! As described in PR 71779 and PR 70903 we have a wrong code issue on aarch64 which is triggered by a paradoxical subreg that can be created in store_bit_field_using_insv when the target has an EP_insv bitfield instruction. The attached patch changes this insn... (insn 1047 1046 1048 (set

[Bug c/72685] New: Belkin Router support @1 844-330-2330@ Belkin router tech support number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72685 Bug ID: 72685 Summary: Belkin Router support @1 844-330-2330@ Belkin router tech support number Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

Re: [PATCH] accept flexible arrays in struct in unions (c++/71912 - [6/7 regression])

On 07/23/2016 01:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: + /* A pair of the first non-static non-empty data members following + either the flexible array member, if found, or the zero-length + array member otherwise. AFTER[1] refers to the first such data + member of a union that the struct

[Bug fortran/72698] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE in lhd_incomplete_type_error, at langhooks.c:205

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72698 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/72051] gfortran bug - internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051 --- Comment #14 from wadud.miah at nag dot co.uk --- Do I need to compile with "-fcheck=mem" to get it working?

[Bug c/72688] New: Norton antivirus tech Support(+(1-855-990-5999)))number usa customer service phone number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72688 Bug ID: 72688 Summary: Norton antivirus tech Support(+(1-855-990-5999)))number usa customer service phone number Product: gcc Version: unknown

[Bug fortran/72051] gfortran bug - internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051 --- Comment #8 from wadud.miah at nag dot co.uk --- Hi kargl, I am getting the bug with gfortran 5.3.1. could you try to reproduce the bug with that version? Regards, Wadud.

[Bug c/72692] New: Netgear Tech support Number@1 844-330-2330@ Netgear Wireless router tech support number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72692 Bug ID: 72692 Summary: Netgear Tech support Number@1 844-330-2330@ Netgear Wireless router tech support number Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/72684] New: Netgear Router support @1 844-330-2330@ Netgear router tech support number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72684 Bug ID: 72684 Summary: Netgear Router support @1 844-330-2330@ Netgear router tech support number Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/72457] [7 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72457 --- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Created attachment 39023 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39023=edit reduced testcase

[Bug fortran/52153] REAL128 gives extended precision, not quad precision

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52153 Alexander Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.vogt at fulguritus dot com ---

[Bug fortran/72699] ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1257

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72699 --- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- No ICE without explicit "implicit none". But of course again with added option -fimplicit-none. $ cat z2.f90 function f() result(z) character(:), allocatable

[Bug fortran/72699] New: ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1257

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72699 Bug ID: 72699 Summary: ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1257 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/72051] gfortran bug - internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051 wadud.miah at nag dot co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/72051] gfortran bug - internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|2016-07-25

[Bug fortran/72051] gfortran bug - internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug ipa/72657] [7 regression][CHKP] internal compiler error: in ix86_expand_builtin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72657 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #1) > Looks like it is caused by remained direct fndecl comparisons in checker > code. > Usage of chkp_gimple_call_builtin_p everywhere should fix it. Will it also fix PR

[Bug fortran/72051] gfortran bug - internal compiler error

||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- After screwing around with the build system, I managed to prove that both gcc version 7.0.0 20160726 (experimental) (GCC) gcc version 6.1.1

[Bug c/72695] New: Netgear Router Tech support Number@1 844-330-2330@ Netgear Wireless router tech support number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72695 Bug ID: 72695 Summary: Netgear Router Tech support Number@1 844-330-2330@ Netgear Wireless router tech support number Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/72698] New: ICE in lhd_incomplete_type_error, at langhooks.c:205

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72698 Bug ID: 72698 Summary: ICE in lhd_incomplete_type_error, at langhooks.c:205 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/72699] [6/7 Regression] ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1257

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72699 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/72051] gfortran bug - internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051 --- Comment #10 from wadud.miah at nag dot co.uk --- I find this a very unusual response :-( What's the purpose of testing other compilers when the bug is in version 5.3.1? I'm not happy that the ticket has been closed without asking me whether I

[Bug fortran/72051] gfortran bug - internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72051 --- Comment #16 from wadud.miah at nag dot co.uk --- I guess I just have to wait for a gfortran update in Fedora Core 23?

Re: [PATCH], Fix PR 71869, Correctly implement isgreater, etc. on PowerPC __float128

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:05:32AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp.c (revision 0) > > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/float128-cmp.c (revision 0) > > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ > > +/* { dg-do compile { target { powerpc*-*-linux* } } } */ > > +/* {

[Bug java/72482] New: {{USA))-188~-8468+~O321 Webroot 360 antivirus TECH SUPPORT PHONE NUMBER

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72482 Bug ID: 72482 Summary: {{USA))-188~-8468+~O321 Webroot 360 antivirus TECH SUPPORT PHONE NUMBER Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug debug/72483] New: @~@ Webroot @`1800059007`@ technical @~@ support @~@ number aus @@ Webroot helpline numer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72483 Bug ID: 72483 Summary: @~@ Webroot @`1800059007`@ technical @~@ support @~@ number aus @@ Webroot helpline numer Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/72481] New: Compile error for varadic template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72481 Bug ID: 72481 Summary: Compile error for varadic template Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/71961] [7 Regression] 178.galgel in SPEC CPU 2000 is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71961 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2016-07-21 00:00:00 | --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---

[Bug fortran/71862] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] ICE in gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:241

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862 --- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Tue Jul 26 22:42:49 2016 New Revision: 238774 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238774=gcc=rev Log: 2016-07-22 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug c/71939] sole flexible array member in an anonymous structure rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71939 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > While testing a fix for bug 71912 and comparing the C++ front end results to > those of the C front end I came across the following

[Bug c/71949] ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT definition in stdatomic.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71949 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT is an initializer, not an expression that can be used in assignments. The C11 model is that it may not be valid to do assignments such as > atomic_flag f2; > f2 =

Re: [PATCH] correct atomic_compare_exchange_n return type (c++/71675)

On 07/25/2016 05:03 AM, Renlin Li wrote: Hi Martin, I observed the following error: ERROR: gcc.dg/atomic/pr71675.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects : syntax error in target selector "target c11" for " dg-do 3 compile { target c11 } " It seems we don't have a c11 effective

[Bug target/72103] ICE with gcc 7 for povray benchmark

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72103 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [PATCH], Fix PR 71869, Correctly implement isgreater, etc. on PowerPC __float128

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 08:04:32PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > dg-do compile? That's not testing much then, as an executable test! > > Good catch. Hopefully, third time is a charm. I verified that changing the > dg-do compile to dg-do run did run properly on a big endian power7 (both >

Re: [PATCH], Fix PR 71869, Correctly implement isgreater, etc. on PowerPC __float128

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 06:26:19PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 04:09:01PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote: > > > Could you test all five functions please? Use multiple testcases, maybe. > > > > I decided to write an executable test rather than do more assembly tests.

Re: [Bug tree-optimization] Fix for PR71994

Hi Jeff, Thanks for your comments. * tree-ssa-reassoc.c (maybe_optimize_range_tests): Check type compatibility. I'd kind of like to see some analysis of how we've got a bool here -- ISTM it ought to have been converted it to the type of the LHS of the PHI when propagated. You are

[Bug c++/72708] New: error on anonymous union in an unnamed namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72708 Bug ID: 72708 Summary: error on anonymous union in an unnamed namespace Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/71869] __builtin_isgreater raises an invalid exception on PPC64 using __float128 inputs.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71869 --- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Wed Jul 27 04:45:59 2016 New Revision: 238779 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238779=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2016-07-26 Michael Meissner PR

Re: [PATCH/AARCH64] Add scheduler for vulcan.

Hi James, > Would you mind taking a look at some of these techniques to see if you can > reduce the size of the generated automata without causing too much > trouble for code generation for Vulcan? Thanks for the review. I will look into this. with regards, Virendra Pathak On Mon, Jul 25,

[Bug ada/25844] [4.9/5/6/7 regression] ICE on overloaded renames

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25844 Anh Vo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anhvofrcaus at gmail dot com --- Comment #17

[Bug c++/72707] New: [4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9/5/6/7 regression] local anonymous union member hides names in the same scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72707 Bug ID: 72707 Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9/5/6/7 regression] local anonymous union member hides names in the same scope Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/72708] error on anonymous union in an unnamed namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72708 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I don't think so. Static != internal linkage. If anything you found a defect in the C++ language.

[RS6000] push_secondary_reload ICE

target.h struct secondary_reload_info has two fields that "are for the use of the backward compatibility hook", default_secondary_reload. t_icode is used to pass information from one invocation of default_secondary_reload to the next, between the targetm.secondary_reload call below in

[Bug rtl-optimization/72488] New: wrong code (SIGFPE) at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (in the 64-bit mode)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488 Bug ID: 72488 Summary: wrong code (SIGFPE) at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (in the 64-bit mode) Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug debug/72522] New: Norton=@-=UK=1800-810-1018 Antivirus=Technical=Support=Number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72522 Bug ID: 72522 Summary: Norton=@-=UK=1800-810-1018 Antivirus=Technical=Support=Number Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug debug/72541] New: !!Outlook OUTLOOK Online Support 1800 810 1018)))))microsoft office 2016 CALLnical support number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72541 Bug ID: 72541 Summary: !!Outlook OUTLOOK Online Support 1800 810 1018)microsoft office 2016 CALLnical support number Product: gcc Version: unknown

[Bug debug/72530] New: s!gNUpbe$tline Number++18**88-=4*6*8-=O3**21++bitdefender antivirus technical support phone number USA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72530 Bug ID: 72530 Summary: s!gNUpbe$tline Number++18**88-=4*6*8-=O3**21++bitdefender antivirus technical support phone number USA Product: gcc Version: unknown

[Bug debug/72538] spam

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72538 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug debug/72547] New: ++>>>1-800-810-1018 BROTHER PRINTER TECH support phone number,BROTHER printer helpline number UK...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72547 Bug ID: 72547 Summary: ++>>>1-800-810-1018 BROTHER PRINTER TECH support phone number,BROTHER printer helpline number UK... Product: gcc Version: unknown Status:

[Bug target/71993] __builtin_cpu_supports() does not support "f16c"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71993 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-* --- Comment #1 from Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/71994] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71994 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug debug/72559] New: ++@!~+>>uk>1-800-810-1018 HP PRINTER TECH support phone number,HP printer helpline number usa AUS.SYDNEY

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72559 Bug ID: 72559 Summary: ++@!~+>>uk>1-800-810-1018 HP PRINTER TECH support phone number,HP printer helpline number usa AUS.SYDNEY Product: gcc Version: unknown Status:

  1   2   3   >