assume","at","ate","atm","attached","attachment

Bear's iPhone

Re: Clobber REG_CC only for some constraint alternatives?

Pip Cet writes: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:52 AM Senthil Kumar Selvaraj > wrote: >> > recognize such insns, but as it stands that define_insn would >> > recognize the incorrect insn: >> > >> > [(set (reg:QI 0) (const_int 0)) >> > (clobber (scratch:CC))] >> >> get_cc_reg_clobber_rtx also

Re: Clobber REG_CC only for some constraint alternatives?

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > What I didn't understand was the (set-attr "cc") > part - as far I can tell, this results in (set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in > all of the three substituted patterns, so I wondered why not just have > (set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in the original

RE: [RFC] LTO Dead Field Elimination and LTO Field Reordering

Hi Erick, Thanks for updating the branch! From some initial testing it seems to result in some nice gains for mcf but also in lower peak memory usage and smaller binaries even for benchmarks that don't show an improvement in runtime though I haven't looked at these more closely yet. I think

gcc-8-20200820 is now available

Snapshot gcc-8-20200820 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20200820/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch

Re: Clobber REG_CC only for some constraint alternatives?

On 20/08/2020 06:40, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj via Gcc wrote: What I didn't understand was the (set-attr "cc") part - as far I can tell, this results in (set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in all of the three substituted patterns, so I wondered why not just have (set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in the original

Question about Gimple Variables named D.[0-9]*

Hello, I am looking at the dump for the build_alias pass. I see a lot of variables with the naming convention D.[0-9]* in the points-to sets being printed. When I compile with -fdump-tree-all-all I can see that the suffix D.[0-9]* is appended to some gimple variables. I initially imagined

Re: Clobber REG_CC only for some constraint alternatives?

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 1:53 AM Andrew Stubbs wrote: > > On 20/08/2020 06:40, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj via Gcc wrote: > > What I didn't understand was the (set-attr "cc") > > part - as far I can tell, this results in (set_attr "cc_enabled" ...) in > > all of the three substituted patterns, so I

[RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

Hi, There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of code like: int foo (int n) { int t1 = 8 * n; int t2 = 8 * (n - 1); return t1 - t2; } It can be perfectly caught by the rule "(A * C) +- (B * C) -> (A +- B) * C", and be folded to constant "8". But

Re: Clobber REG_CC only for some constraint alternatives?

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:52 AM Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > > recognize such insns, but as it stands that define_insn would > > recognize the incorrect insn: > > > > [(set (reg:QI 0) (const_int 0)) > > (clobber (scratch:CC))] > > get_cc_reg_clobber_rtx also looks at the insn itself (i.e.

[Bug target/88808] bitwise operators on AVX512 masks fail to use the new mask instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88808 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:388cb292a94f98a276548cd6ce01285cf36d17df commit r11-2796-g388cb292a94f98a276548cd6ce01285cf36d17df Author: liuhongt Date: Thu Aug

[Bug target/71453] Spills to vector registers are sub-optimal.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71453 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00cb3494cab397b5655ab42fd69310883c12137c commit r11-2793-g00cb3494cab397b5655ab42fd69310883c12137c Author: H.J. Lu Date: Tue Sep 3

[Bug other/91085] fixincludes breaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91085 --- Comment #12 from Bruce Korb --- I'll put it on my to-do list, but I might be participating in a fire evacuation tonight or tomorrow and I haven't built GCC in several years now. I'm going to guess that you have to not do the substitution

[Bug target/94531] gcc.target/arm/its.c fails for cortex-m3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94531 --- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #0) > I've noticed that gcc.target/arm/its.c fails when targetting > cortex-m3 or m33, but that's probably true with all cortex-m versions. > Since I have

Re: [PATCH] PR libstdc++/71579 assert that type traits are not misused with an incomplete type

ср, 19 авг. 2020 г. в 14:29, Jonathan Wakely : <...> > Do we also want to check > (std::__is_complete_or_unbounded(__type_identity<_ArgTypes>{}) && ...) > for invoke_result and the is_invocable traits? Done. Changelog: 2020-08-20 Antony Polukhin PR libstdc/71579 *

[Bug fortran/94958] gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:9797: possible typo ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94958 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Andre Vehreschild : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05814dde7024a8fa05a735cafcda72b5eb5ec0c0 commit r11-2783-g05814dde7024a8fa05a735cafcda72b5eb5ec0c0 Author: Andre Vehreschild

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:32 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 07:14:19PM +, GT wrote: > > > > That sounds like libmvec? > > > I still don't know what this is. > > > > Yes, it is libmvec. > > Now look at what GCC does to the code in

[Bug middle-end/96725] warn for uses of global nonconstant unterminated char arrays where strings are required

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96725 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Severity|normal

[Bug fortran/96711] Internal Compiler Error on NINT() Function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 03:54:44PM +, bre08 at eggen dot co.uk wrote: > > PS (and maybe I need to post this separately as a suggestion) - will > there be a fast "octuple-precision floating point /

[Bug middle-end/96725] New: warn for uses of global nonconstant unterminated char arrays where strings are required

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96725 Bug ID: 96725 Summary: warn for uses of global nonconstant unterminated char arrays where strings are required Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

Re: [PATCH, nvptx, libgomp] Avoid use of GOMP_PLUGIN_acc_thread() in nvptx_free()

On 8/20/20 3:03 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote: > Hi Tom, > this patch adjusts nvptx_free() in libgomp/plugin/plugin-nvptx.c to avoid a > "GOMP_PLUGIN_acc_thread() == NULL" check that was causing problems under > OpenMP offloading. > > This check was originally used to determine if nvptx_free() was

Re: [PATCH] arm: Require MVE memory operand for destination of vst1q intrinsic

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 3:31 PM Joe Ramsay wrote: > > Hi Ramana, > > Thanks for the review. > > On 18/08/2020, 18:37, "Ramana Radhakrishnan" > wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:18 PM Joe Ramsay wrote: > > > > From: Joe Ramsay > > > > Hi, > > > > Previously, the

Re: [Patch, fortran, coarray] Fix obvious typo in co_broadcast's argument assembly

Hi, commited with the input by Tobias applied. The full commit message now is: Fix obvious typo were errmsg_len was assigned to errmsg. gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: 2020-08-20 Andre Vehreschild PR fortran/94958 * trans-array.c

[Bug tree-optimization/96722] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Clobbers on NULL since r8-1519

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96722 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

Re: [PATCH] arm: Require MVE memory operand for destination of vst1q intrinsic

Hi Ramana, Thanks for the review. On 18/08/2020, 18:37, "Ramana Radhakrishnan" wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:18 PM Joe Ramsay wrote: > > From: Joe Ramsay > > Hi, > > Previously, the machine description patterns for vst1q accepted a generic memory >

Re: [PATCH, nvptx, libgomp] Avoid use of GOMP_PLUGIN_acc_thread() in nvptx_free()

Hi Tom, thanks for the extremely quick review :) On 2020/8/20 9:33 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: I reviewed the CUDA API docs and see that CUDA_ERROR_NOT_PERMITTED is returned for such CUDA calls inside callback context, Right, that's "Callbacks must not make any CUDA API calls. Attempting to use a

Re: [Patch] Fortran: Add 'device_type' clause to OpenMP's declare target

Hi Tobias, to me this looks OK now. Regards, Andre On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:51:50 +0200 Tobias Burnus wrote: > Updated patch – taking Andre's suggestions into account + > extending the testcase, which now catches the previous (NO)HOST > module issue. > > OK? > > Tobias > > On 8/19/20

Re: [Patch, committed] Fortran: Fix OpenMP's 'if(simd:' etc. conditions

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 01:36:01PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: > > * openmp.c (gfc_match_omp_clauses): Re-order 'if' clause pasing > to avoid creating spurious symbols. > > libgomp/ChangeLog: > > *

[Bug middle-end/95667] [11 Regression] unintended warning for memset writing across multiple members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95667 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443 Bug 88443 depends on bug 95667, which changed state. Bug 95667 Summary: [11 Regression] unintended warning for memset writing across multiple members https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95667 What|Removed

[Bug fortran/96711] Internal Compiler Error on NINT() Function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711 --- Comment #10 from B Eggen --- I've been experimenting with the suggested work-around m = anint(y) This works for larger numbers, even in quad precision, however, it breaks down a long way before the integer*16 range is exhausted, consider

Re: [PATCH] configure: Require C++11 for building code generation tools

On Thu, 2020-08-20 at 13:59 +0100, Vasee Vinayagamoorthy wrote: > Hello, > > After commit [1] ("Redefine NULL to nullptr"), building gcc > fails when $CXX_FOR_BUILD is not using C++11 mode by default. > This happens with gcc-4.8 which is still supported. > > This patch fixes this by adding

[Bug c++/96720] ICE with* after include

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96720 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code CC|

[Bug c/96683] Arm: MVE ACLE intrinsics vst1q_{s8|u8|s16|u16} is not supported by GCC.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96683 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Joe Ramsay : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:91d206adfe39ce063f6a5731b92a03c05e82e94a commit r11-2782-g91d206adfe39ce063f6a5731b92a03c05e82e94a Author: Joe Ramsay Date: Wed Aug

Re: [PATCH] configure: Require C++11 for building code generation tools

The 08/20/2020 13:59, Vasee Vinayagamoorthy wrote: > +# Also require C++11 for building code generation tools. > +# Do nothing if "${build}" = "${host}", because in this case > +# CXX_FOR_BUILD="\$(CXX)", and $CXX is already set to the correct value > above. > +if test "${build}" != "${host}";

[Bug fortran/93671] gfortran 8-10 ICE on intrinsic assignment to allocatable derived-type component of coarray

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93671 Andre Vehreschild changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [RISC-V] Add support for AddressSanitizer on RISC-V GCC

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 02:25:37 PDT (-0700), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote: Hi Andrew: I am not sure the reason why some targets pick different numbers. It seems it's not only target dependent but also OS dependent[1]. For RV32, I think using 1<<29 like other 32 bit targets is fine. [1]

Re: [PATCH] configure: Require C++11 for building code generation tools

Hi, how about my (unreviewed) patch for PR 96612 at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551900.html ? That one also tries to solve the CXX_FOR_BUILD issue with an older GCC. Would that solve your issue as well? Tobias On 8/20/20 4:19 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches

[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/96724 - Bogus warnings with the repeat intrinsic and the flag -Wconversion-extra

Hi all! Proposed patch to PR96724 - Bogus warnings with the repeat intrinsic and the flag -Wconversion-extra. Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Add code to force conversion to the default wider integer type before multiplication. Thank you very much. Best regards, José Rui

Re: [PATCH] configure: Require C++11 for building code generation tools

Hi Szabolcs, In the top level gcc config.log, I see: configure:5541: checking whether aarch64-none-linux-gnu-g++ supports C++11 features by default configure:5837: aarch64-none-linux-gnu-g++ -c -g -O2 conftest.cpp >&5 configure:5837: $? = 0 configure:5844: result: yes configure:6542: checking

[Bug testsuite/96718] 25_algorithms/pstl/feature_test-3.cc has excess error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96718 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|[11

[Bug fortran/96711] Internal Compiler Error on NINT() Function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711 --- Comment #12 from B Eggen --- Thanks for your explanations, and for reminding me of the excellent library etc by David Bailey. My original quest was to have a fast method to decide for large integers quickly whether they are perfect squares.

[Bug fortran/94958] gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:9797: possible typo ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94958 Andre Vehreschild changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING --- Comment #6 from Andre

Re: [PATCH] Fortran : get_environment_variable runtime error PR96486

Hi Mark, Please find attached a fix for PR96486. OK to commit? OK. Thanks for the patch! Best regards Thomas

[Bug c/84919] [8/9 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 --- Comment #27 from Martin Sebor --- The fix was applied to GCC 10 but not to GCC 9 or 8. It will not be backported there. It can be suppressed by introducing a named temporary copy of the pointer and using it as one other other argument to

[Bug fortran/96711] Internal Compiler Error on NINT() Function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711 --- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 01:47:58PM +, bre08 at eggen dot co.uk wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96711 > > --- Comment #10 from B Eggen --- > I've been experimenting with the

[Bug fortran/96724] New: Bogus warnings with the repeat intrinsic and the flag -Wconversion-extra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96724 Bug ID: 96724 Summary: Bogus warnings with the repeat intrinsic and the flag -Wconversion-extra Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/93665] missing warning on strncmp reading past unterminated array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93665 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

Re: [Patch] configure: Also check C++11 (flags) for ${build} compiler not only for ${host}

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020, Tobias Burnus wrote: > diff --git a/config/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4 b/config/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4 > index 9413da624d2..0cd515fc65b 100644 > --- a/config/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4 > +++ b/config/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4 > @@ -25,6 +25,10 @@ > # regardless, after defining

Re: [PATCH] configure: Require C++11 for building code generation tools

On 20/08/2020 18:07, Vaseeharan Vinayagamoorthy wrote: > Hi Szabolcs, > > In the top level gcc config.log, I see: > > configure:5541: checking whether aarch64-none-linux-gnu-g++ supports C++11 > features by default > configure:5837: aarch64-none-linux-gnu-g++ -c -g -O2 conftest.cpp >&5 >

Re: [Patch] configure: Also check C++11 (flags) for ${build} compiler not only for ${host}

On 8/20/20 7:12 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: It appears you're requiring _FOR_BUILD here and considering other suffixes invalid, which would prevent any other use, e.g. _FOR_TARGET. Actually, the main reason I required _FOR_BUILD was that I couldn't find m4_ifnblank and then gave up ... Now having

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 07:31:50PM +, GT wrote: > I'm still trying to understand why we need attribute((target("vsx"))). > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#Common-Function-Attributes > > The documentation for target(string) states that the purpose is to

[Bug bootstrap/96612] [11 Regression][submitted patch] Fails to bootstrap with older --build= than --host= compiler due to missing -std=c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96612 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 07:31:50PM +, GT wrote: > I'm still trying to understand why we need attribute((target("vsx"))). You need Power8, even! "vsx" alone is not enough (that only guarantees Power7). Your minimum version ("b") requires Power8. Segher

[committed 3/3] [OG10] Annotate inner loops in "acc kernels loop" directives (Fortran).

Normally explicit loop directives in a kernels region inhibit automatic annotation of other loops in the same nest, on the theory that users have indicated they want manual control over that section of code. However there seems to be an expectation in user code that the combined "kernels loop"

[committed 1/3] [OG10] Add a "combined" flag for "acc kernels loop" etc directives.

2020-08-19 Sandra Loosemore gcc/ * tree.h (OACC_LOOP_COMBINED): New. gcc/c/ * c-parser.c (c_parser_oacc_loop): Set OACC_LOOP_COMBINED. gcc/cp/ * parser.c (cp_parser_oacc_loop): Set OACC_LOOP_COMBINED. gcc/fortran/ *

[committed 2/3] [og10] Annotate inner loops in "acc kernels loop" directives (C/C++).

Normally explicit loop directives in a kernels region inhibit automatic annotation of other loops in the same nest, on the theory that users have indicated they want manual control over that section of code. However there seems to be an expectation in user code that the combined "kernels loop"

[committed 0/3] [OG10] openacc: Fix annotation of inner loops in combined "acc kernels loop" directives

The annotator that detects loops in kernels regions and adds "auto" attributes to them presently ignores loops nested in an explicitly-annotated loop, on the theory that the user likely marked up only some of the loops in the nest as a means of deliberately controlling the parallelism. Inspection

Re: reorg.c (fill_slots_from_thread): Improve for TARGET_FLAGS_REGNUM targets

> From: Richard Sandiford > Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 10:30:56 +0200 > Anything I once knew about reorg.c has long since faded away, but since > noone else has reviewed it... Thanks. I forgot to add PATCH and/or RFA: in the subject and forgot to CC Eric, assuming he's interested (I did CC him as

[Bug tree-optimization/92539] [8/9/10/11 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O3 (loop unroll?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92539 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10/11 Regression]

[Bug analyzer/96723] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV: infinite recursion in ana::region::get_subregions_for_binding with -Og -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96723 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/96101] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96101 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:300ef2fcc10e98359d14654be23bbb84a5d141e1 commit r11-2785-g300ef2fcc10e98359d14654be23bbb84a5d141e1 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Thu

[Bug fortran/96100] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:14638

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96100 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:300ef2fcc10e98359d14654be23bbb84a5d141e1 commit r11-2785-g300ef2fcc10e98359d14654be23bbb84a5d141e1 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Thu

[Bug fortran/96320] gfortran 8-10 shape mismatch in assumed-length dummy argument character array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320 --- Comment #24 from Damian Rouson --- This appears to be another example of an issue with a module procedure defined in the same module as its interface body. In this case, the compiler doesn't recognize a reference to the procedure: ± cat

[Bug fortran/96727] New: ICE with character length specified using specification function on assumed-rank array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96727 Bug ID: 96727 Summary: ICE with character length specified using specification function on assumed-rank array Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[PATCH v3] libgcc: Use `-fasynchronous-unwind-tables' for LIB2_DIVMOD_FUNCS

Complement commit b932f770f70d ("x86_64 frame unwind info"), SVN r46374, , and replace `-fexceptions -fnon-call-exceptions' with `-fasynchronous-unwind-tables' in LIB2_DIVMOD_FUNCS compilation flags so as to provide unwind tables for

Re: [committed] libstdc++: Make __int128 meet integer-class requirements [PR 96042]

On 19/08/20 20:36 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 19/08/20 17:00 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Because __int128 can be used as the difference type for iota_view, we need to ensure that it meets the requirements of an integer-class type. The requirements in [iterator.concept.winc] p10 include

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, August 13, 2020 5:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 08:40:22PM +, GT wrote: > > > I'm looking at ix86_simd_clone_adjust and also aarch64_simd_clone_adjust. > > The latter is > > much simpler and I see how I would add PPC

[Bug fortran/87711] ICE in gfc_trans_transfer, at fortran/trans-io.c:2676

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87711 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/93529] Implement P1009R2, Array size deduction in new-expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93529 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek

Re: [PATCH] configure: Require C++11 for building code generation tools

Hi Tobias, This patch fixes the issue that I was seeing, thanks. I will also now try your updated patch from https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/552330.html Kind Regards Vasee On 20/08/2020, 17:29, "Tobias Burnus" wrote: Hi, how about my (unreviewed) patch for PR

[Bug bootstrap/92828] array out of bounds access in libcpp/mkdeps.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92828 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|WAITING

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 92828, which changed state. Bug 92828 Summary: array out of bounds access in libcpp/mkdeps.c https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92828 What|Removed |Added

[Bug analyzer/96723] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV: infinite recursion in ana::region::get_subregions_for_binding with -Og -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96723 Arseny Solokha changed: What|Removed |Added CC||asolokha at gmx dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug analyzer/96666] [11 Regression] Analyzer creates too many regions for a particular program

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9 Arseny Solokha changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

Re: [PATCH v2] libgcc: Use `-fasynchronous-unwind-tables' for LIB2_DIVMOD_FUNCS

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > That said I'm of course happy to keep the ARM overrides if you consider > > them still necessary in the context of the generic change made. Let me > > know what you prefer, and if required, I will submit v3 with the ARM > > pieces removed.

[committed] analyzer: fix infinite recursion ICE on unions [PR96723]

Attempts to store sm-state into a union in C++ triggered an infinite recursion when trying to generate a representative tree, due to erroneously trying to use the dtor of the union as a field. Fix it by filtering out non-FIELD_DECLs when walking TYPE_FIELDs in region::get_subregions_for_binding.

[Bug analyzer/96723] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV: infinite recursion in ana::region::get_subregions_for_binding with -Og -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96723 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/90367] Spurious warning array subscript is above array bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 90367, which changed state. Bug 90367 Summary: Spurious warning array subscript is above array bounds https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367 What|Removed |Added

[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/96727 - ICE with character length specified using specification function on assumed-rank array

Hi all! Proposed patch to PR96727 - ICE with character length specified using specification function on assumed-rank array. Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Add missing default error message for the assumed-rank array case. Thank you very much. Best regards, José Rui 2020-8-20

[Bug fortran/96728] New: Fatal Error: Reading module inquiry functions on assumed-rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96728 Bug ID: 96728 Summary: Fatal Error: Reading module inquiry functions on assumed-rank Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: reorg.c (fill_slots_from_thread): Improve for TARGET_FLAGS_REGNUM targets

Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches writes: >> > @@ -2411,6 +2411,21 @@ fill_slots_from_thread (rtx_jump_insn *insn, rtx >> > condition, >> >CLEAR_RESOURCE (); >> >CLEAR_RESOURCE (); >> > >> > + /* Handle the flags register specially, to be able to accept a >> > + candidate that

[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/96728 - Fatal Error: Reading module inquiry functions on assumed-rank

Hi all! Proposed patch to PR96728 - Fatal Error: Reading module inquiry functions on assumed-rank. Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. The rank of the argument to specification functions gets written when writing the module file, but, since the value will be negative for assumed-rank

[Bug bootstrap/96612] [11 Regression][submitted patch] Fails to bootstrap with older --build= than --host= compiler due to missing -std=c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96612 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7ffcf5d61174dda1f39a623e15f7e5d6b98bbafc commit r11-2787-g7ffcf5d61174dda1f39a623e15f7e5d6b98bbafc Author: Tobias Burnus Date:

[Bug fortran/96726] New: ICE with user defined specification function on assumed-rank array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96726 Bug ID: 96726 Summary: ICE with user defined specification function on assumed-rank array Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/96613] SIGFPE on min1() with -ffpe-trap=invalid switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96613 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Huxhorn --- I compiled the latest git GCC and rerun the program, no more problems. Thank you all :)

Re: [PATCH] improve validation of attribute arguments (PR c/78666)

First, didn't Marek say in the PR that the diagnostic code should go in diagnose_mismatched_attributes? An overall comment-- could we write a generic validator rather than having to special case validation on a case by case basis? Is there way of marking attributes as immutable if specified

Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] PPC64: Implement POWER Architecture Vector Function ABI.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 04:19:36PM +, GT wrote: > > Great! Please repost with what I already pointed out fixed, that > > explanation added, and working links to the documentation? > > Are you ok with the titles of the patch and this document? > >

[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/96726 - ICE with user defined specification function on assumed-rank array

Hi all! Proposed patch to PR96726 - ICE with user defined specification function on assumed-rank array. Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Obvious fix, replace different operator with less than to avoid infinite loop. Thank you very much. Best regards, José Rui 2020-8-20 José

[PATCH] libstdc++: Fix iota_view::size() to avoid overflow

This avoids overfow that occurs when negating the most negative value of an integral type. Also prevent returning signed int when the values have lower rank and promote to int. libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: * include/std/ranges (ranges::iota_view::size()): Perform all calculations in

Re: [Patch] configure: Also check C++11 (flags) for ${build} compiler not only for ${host}

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Thanks for the first review; new version attached. Thanks, this version is OK for GCC (but the GCC version will need updating if autoconf-archive ends up with a different version of these changes). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

[Bug libstdc++/71960] __glibcxx_assert and Debug Mode checks can't be used in constexpr functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71960 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Assignee|unassigned at

[PATCH] c++: Implement P1009: Array size deduction in new-expressions.

This patch implements C++20 P1009, allowing code like new double[]{1,2,3}; // array bound will be deduced Since this proposal makes the initialization rules more consistent, it is applied to all previous versions of C++ (thus, effectively, all the way back to C++11). My patch is based on

[Bug analyzer/96723] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV: infinite recursion in ana::region::get_subregions_for_binding with -Og -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96723 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00cb0f5840795698557731c6e549a5ce99573223 commit r11-2789-g00cb0f5840795698557731c6e549a5ce99573223 Author: David Malcolm Date:

Re: [PATCH 4/4][PR target/88808]Enable bitwise operator for AVX512 masks.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 3:24 PM Hongtao Liu wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:05 PM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:25 AM Hongtao Liu wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:08 PM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:26 AM Hongtao Liu

Re: [PATCH 4/4][PR target/88808]Enable bitwise operator for AVX512 masks.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 3:40 PM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 9:31 AM Hongtao Liu wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 3:24 PM Hongtao Liu wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:05 PM Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:25 AM Hongtao Liu

[Bug fortran/96436] -std=f2003 -pedantic rejects valid f0.d edit descriptor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96436 markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

Re: [PATCH] [FIX] Remove object adjustment to preserve object attributes

Petro Karashchenko via Gcc-patches writes: > for bitfield MEMREFs > > [FIX] Propagate uncached type attributes to unaligned/packed types This doesn't look safe in general. The current code was added to avoid wrong-code problems for accesses that step outside the bounds of the original MEM_EXPR.

[Bug c++/96717] -flifetime-dse=2 breaks webkit-gtk-2.28.4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96717 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Created attachment 49085 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49085=edit Preprocessed source for a.cc

  1   2   >