Re: [EVRP] Fold stmts with vrp_fold_stmt

Hi Richard, Thanks for the review. On 04/10/16 19:56, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, kugan wrote: Hi, This patch improves Early VRP by folding stmts using vrp_fold_stmt as it is done in ssa_propagate for VRP. Why? I thought it would be good for early vrp to simplify stmts

[Bug c++/77858] New: std::polar throws an exception if rho is negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77858 Bug ID: 77858 Summary: std::polar throws an exception if rho is negative Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

Re: [PATCH] DWARF: remove pessimistic DWARF version checks for imported entities

The new patch works on darwin without new regression. Thanks, Dominique > Le 4 oct. 2016 à 15:58, Pierre-Marie de Rodat a écrit : > > Hello, > > Thank you very much for you help, Dominique! > > On 09/29/2016 03:16 PM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> FAIL:

[Patch, libgfortran] Inquire internal unit within child dtio procedure

Committed as trivial. Reported on c.l.f Regression tested on x86-64. Regards, Jerry 2016-10-04 Jerry DeLisle io/inquire.c (inquire_via_unit): Add check for internal unit passed into child IO procedure. 2016-10-04 Jerry DeLisle

[Bug go/77857] New: gccgo: vendoring doesn't work in gcc 6/7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77857 Bug ID: 77857 Summary: gccgo: vendoring doesn't work in gcc 6/7 Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: go

Re: C++ PATCH for C++17 class template placeholders

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > C++17 adds the ability to omit the template arguments for a class > template when declaring a variable with an initializer, much like auto > but supporting a wider variety of initialization. This is intended to > replace

[gomp4] update tile clause lowering in fortran

Nathan noticed that the fortran FE wasn't lowering tiled loops in the same format as the C/C++ FEs. The canonical format of tiled loops going forward is that of omp/acc collapsed loops; tiled loops are lowered into a collection of tightly nested for loops. While making this change, I noticed that

[Bug tree-optimization/77856] New: wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu in 32-bit mode

-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 7.0.0 20161004 (experimental) [trunk revision 240755] (GCC) $ $ gcc-6.2 -m32 -O2 small.c

[Bug rtl-optimization/77855] New: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 7.0.0 20161004 (experimental) [trunk revision 240755

[Bug c++/77852] ICE when deducing class template arguments for pair or tuple

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77852 --- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Wed Oct 5 01:24:38 2016 New Revision: 240765 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240765=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/77852 - class deduction from list-init * pt.c

[Bug c++/77852] ICE when deducing class template arguments for pair or tuple

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77852 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

Re: [PATCH] - improve sprintf buffer overflow detection (middle-end/49905)

On 10/04/2016 06:21 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: I've built the sparc-sun-solaris2.12 toolchain and reproduced these warnings. They are vestiges of those I saw and some of which I fixed before. The problem is that %lc expects a wint_t argument which on this

Re: [PATCH] - improve sprintf buffer overflow detection (middle-end/49905)

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: > I've built the sparc-sun-solaris2.12 toolchain and reproduced these > warnings. They are vestiges of those I saw and some of which I fixed > before. The problem is that %lc expects a wint_t argument which on > this target is an alias for long in but the

GCC patch committed: fix -fsplit-stack alloca with -mno-accumulate-outgoing-args

Than McIntosh encountered a bug on 32-bit x86 with code that calls alloca when using -fsplit-stack when -mno-accumulate-outgoing-args is in effect. When alloca is called after a function call, the arguments are left on the stack, which can cause the stack to become misaligned. The problem is

Re: [PATCH] backport dejagnu relative numbers to 6-branch?

On 10/04/2016 01:01 PM, Mike Stump wrote: On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: While backporting a patch for 77804 to the gcc-6-branch I noticed that the DejaGnu relative number patch below is not available there (the new test failed). Is it worth backporting it

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

On 10/04/2016 04:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 4 October 2016 at 10:21, David Brown wrote: On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote: In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments in calls to functions taking bool

[Bug libstdc++/77854] New: std::deque doesn't use allocator's size_type and difference_type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77854 Bug ID: 77854 Summary: std::deque doesn't use allocator's size_type and difference_type Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libfortran/77663] libgfortran/caf/single.c: three minor problems and a lost token

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77663 --- Comment #4 from David Binderman --- (In reply to vehre from comment #1) > what SW did you use to find this? cppcheck, a static analyser for C/C++, available from sourceforge. I run it sometimes over the compiler source code.

Re: [PATCH] - improve sprintf buffer overflow detection (middle-end/49905)

as it happens, I'd already started bootstraps with your patch before your mail arrived :-) Thanks for your help getting to the bottom of this! We're left with FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-4.c (test for

[Bug c/77817] -Wimplicit-fallthrough: cpp directive renders FALLTHRU comment ineffective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/77853] New: -Wimplicit-fallthrough: Fall through comment made ineffective by following comment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77853 Bug ID: 77853 Summary: -Wimplicit-fallthrough: Fall through comment made ineffective by following comment Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/77824] unreachable code in SLSR GIMPLE pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- > Eric, can you please provide a test case where you are seeing the > unpropagated copies? Thanks! I only have an Ada testcase but I think that it would be fairly easy to see unpropagated copies: replace

[Bug c++/77852] New: ICE when deducing class template arguments for pair or tuple

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77852 Bug ID: 77852 Summary: ICE when deducing class template arguments for pair or tuple Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

gcc-5-20161004 is now available

Snapshot gcc-5-20161004 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20161004/ 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

[Bug target/77851] New: Odd code for _Complex float return value

, -16(%rsp) movss -4(%rsp), %xmm0 movss %xmm0, -12(%rsp) movq-16(%rsp), %xmm0 ret .cfi_endproc .LFE0: .size foo, .-foo .ident "GCC: (GNU) 7.0.0 20161004 (experimental)" .section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbit

Re: Patch, Split powerpc -mfloat128 into 2 parts

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:42:21PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Michael Meissner wrote: > > > It also changes __ibm128/__float128, and only registers the keywords if the > > long double type is not IBM extended double or IEEE 128-bit floating point > > respectively. If the

[Bug libgcj/25398] .jar files held open twice at runtime

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25398 Andrew John Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gnu_andrew at member dot fsf.org

Re: [PATCH v2] add -fprolog-pad=N option to c-family

> On Sep 29, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > In case anybody missed it, the Linux kernel side to make use > of this has also been finished meanwhile. Of course it can not > be accepted without compiler support; and this feature patch > is much more versatile than just

Re: Patch, Split powerpc -mfloat128 into 2 parts

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Michael Meissner wrote: > It also changes __ibm128/__float128, and only registers the keywords if the > long double type is not IBM extended double or IEEE 128-bit floating point > respectively. If the long double type matches one of those types, instead it > will issue a

[Bug c/72858] incorrect fixit hints in -Wformat diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72858 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Here's a slightly different but arguably even more compelling test case from x86_64-linux with ILP32 where wchar_t is a typedef for long for some strange reason yet wint_t is a typedef for int. Passing a

Patch, Split powerpc -mfloat128 into 2 parts

In working on the IEEE 128-bit floating point support, I've run into situations where it would be to have the basic KFmode type available under Linux, but not allow the __float128 and _Float128 keywords to be used until the library work is done. But the library functions might want to use some

[Bug tree-optimization/77824] unreachable code in SLSR GIMPLE pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Eric, can you please provide a test case where you are seeing the unpropagated copies? Thanks!

[Bug tree-optimization/77824] unreachable code in SLSR GIMPLE pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824 --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- Ah, the passes have moved around some since I last looked at this. This used to follow a dom pass, so the code for copies didn't kick in any more at that point. So it's understandable that the copy

[Bug c/72858] incorrect fixit hints in -Wformat diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72858 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I came across one subtle case that I think might be better handled differently than the others. The type of the expected argument to a %lc directive is wint_t, which is commonly int, but on some targets long

[Bug c++/77775] [7 Regression] since r238559 Kdevelop gets miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/77775] [7 Regression] since r238559 Kdevelop gets miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Tue Oct 4 21:14:18 2016 New Revision: 240757 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240757=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/5 - misoptimization of PMF comparison * constexpr.c

C++ PATCH for c++/77775 (wrong folding of PMF comparison)

The RECORD_TYPE for a PMF does not have variants in the usual way; rather, a variant PMF will have a distinct RECORD_TYPE where the pfn field has a variant type. As a result, if we cast a constant PMF to a variant type, we will end up looking up a different field than we initialized. Deal with

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Zan Lynx wrote: > On 10/04/2016 02:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> This would have been easier if C++ had allowed the same default value to >> be given in both the declaration and the definition: >> >> void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false); >> >>

C++ PATCH for C++17 class template placeholders

C++17 adds the ability to omit the template arguments for a class template when declaring a variable with an initializer, much like auto but supporting a wider variety of initialization. This is intended to replace functions like make_tuple. Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. commit

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

On 10/04/2016 02:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > This would have been easier if C++ had allowed the same default value to > be given in both the declaration and the definition: > > void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false); > > void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false) > { > } There is really no

[Bug tree-optimization/71661] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71661 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- As noted in my last comment, removal of a forwarder block may turn an irreducible loop into a natural loop. The loop header for any such exposed natural loop will not be recognized as a loop header by

PING Re: [PATCH] Don't peel extra copy of loop in unroller for loops with exit at end

Ping for the following patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01612.html -Pat

Re: [PATCH] add uClibc target hook (PR bootstrap/77819)

On 10/04/2016 08:54 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 10/04/2016 04:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I copied the conditional from config/linux.h but I admit I don't fully understand when the macro is defined. AFAICT it's done in config.gcc, for a limited set of targets. Should I still remove it from

PING Re: [PATCH] PR68212, Correct frequencies/counts when unrolling

Ping for the following patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01363.html -Pat

[Bug target/77850] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-4 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o execute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77850 Bug ID: 77850 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-4 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o execute Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

This would have been easier if C++ had allowed the same default value to be given in both the declaration and the definition: void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false); void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false) { } It seems strange that this is not allowed. The standard says "A default

[Bug c++/77849] New: [regression/4.9] Warning about deprecated enum even when "-Wdeprecated-declarations" is off

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77849 Bug ID: 77849 Summary: [regression/4.9] Warning about deprecated enum even when "-Wdeprecated-declarations" is off Product: gcc Version: 6.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/71661] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71661 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So digging a bit deeper. When we leave threading we've exposed a new natural loop. However, there is still an irreducible loop in the CFG. The CFG and the cached loop information are conservatively

Re: [PATCH] DWARF: remove pessimistic DWARF version checks for imported entities

OK. On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote: > Hello, > > Thank you very much for you help, Dominique! > > On 09/29/2016 03:16 PM, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/binding_label_tests_16.f03 -g (internal compiler >> error) >> FAIL:

[Bug tree-optimization/77848] Gimple if-conversion results in redundant comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/77848] New: Gimple if-conversion results in redundant comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848 Bug ID: 77848 Summary: Gimple if-conversion results in redundant comparisons Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH] backport dejagnu relative numbers to 6-branch?

On 10/04/2016 12:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:05:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: While backporting a patch for 77804 to the gcc-6-branch I noticed that the DejaGnu relative number patch below is not available there (the new test failed). Is it worth backporting it to

Re: [PATCH] backport dejagnu relative numbers to 6-branch?

On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > While backporting a patch for 77804 to the gcc-6-branch I noticed > that the DejaGnu relative number patch below is not available > there (the new test failed). Is it worth backporting it to it? > >

[Bug target/77847] New: PowerPC big endian power7/power8 do not bootstrap due to fall through error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77847 Bug ID: 77847 Summary: PowerPC big endian power7/power8 do not bootstrap due to fall through error Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ

> On 4 Oct 2016, at 18:23, Mike Stump wrote: > > On Oct 4, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >> On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote: >>> Hi Matthias, >>> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote: > As discussed. I think I should ask a

Re: [PATCH] backport dejagnu relative numbers to 6-branch?

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:05:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > While backporting a patch for 77804 to the gcc-6-branch I noticed > that the DejaGnu relative number patch below is not available > there (the new test failed). Is it worth backporting it to it? > >

[PATCH] backport dejagnu relative numbers to 6-branch?

While backporting a patch for 77804 to the gcc-6-branch I noticed that the DejaGnu relative number patch below is not available there (the new test failed). Is it worth backporting it to it? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01617.html Martin

[Bug c++/77846] Wrong error recovery with switch, goto and initialization skipped

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77846 --- Comment #1 from denis.campredon at gmail dot com --- I'm pretty sure it is linked the following code, compiled with '-fpermissive' only prints A instead of AB -- enum E{ A, B }; class C {public:C(){};}; static inline void f(E e)

[Bug c++/77846] New: Wrong error recovery with switch, goto and initialization skipped

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77846 Bug ID: 77846 Summary: Wrong error recovery with switch, goto and initialization skipped Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/77804] Internal compiler error on incorrect initialization of new-d array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77804 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/77804] Internal compiler error on incorrect initialization of new-d array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77804 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Oct 4 17:55:43 2016 New Revision: 240755 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240755=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/77804 - Internal compiler error on incorrect initialization of new-d array

[Bug target/77835] -O2 -pg -m32 overwrites saved lr with bogus value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77835 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug lto/61043] LTO accumulates CPU requirements from all input objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61043 --- Comment #13 from andysem at mail dot ru --- Ok. For the record, opened bug 77845.

[Bug lto/77845] New: LTO accumulates CPU requirements from all input objects (reopen)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77845 Bug ID: 77845 Summary: LTO accumulates CPU requirements from all input objects (reopen) Product: gcc Version: 5.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug lto/61043] LTO accumulates CPU requirements from all input objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61043 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to andysem from comment #10) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9) > > > > I think this testcase is violating C++ ODR. In that > > INSTRUCTION_SET::my_simd_func_impl is the same between

[Bug c++/77804] Internal compiler error on incorrect initialization of new-d array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77804 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Oct 4 17:34:00 2016 New Revision: 240754 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240754=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/77804 - Internal compiler error on incorrect initialization of new-d array

[Bug lto/61043] LTO accumulates CPU requirements from all input objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61043 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/61043] LTO accumulates CPU requirements from all input objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61043 andysem at mail dot ru changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Oct 4, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >> On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote: >>> Hi Matthias, >>> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote: > As discussed. I think I should ask a

Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ

On Oct 4, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote: >> Hi Matthias, >> >>> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote: As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this one. For obvious reasons I haven't included

[PATCH] Move strchr folding to gimple-fold

As suggested in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg02216.html, move all existing strchr and strrchr folding from builtins.c to gimple-fold.c. Passes C/C++ regression & bootstrap. 2016-10-04 Wilco Dijkstra * builtins.c (fold_builtin_strchr): Remove

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR55152

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > Possibly. Though then for FP we also want - abs (a) -> copysign (a, -1). > > > > For architectures such as powerpc that have a negated-abs instruction,

Re: [PATCH] Fix -Wimplicit-fallthrough -C, handle some more comment styles and comments in between FALLTHRU comment and label

> I think the vast majority of the comments I changed (removing "...") > wouldn't have to be changed were this patch in. So can we install it instead of arguing about hypothetical things? -- Eric Botcazou

Always support float128 on ia64 (PR target/77586)

Bug 77586, and previously , reports ia64-elf failing to build because of float128_type_node being NULL, but being used by the back end for __float128. The global float128_type_node is only available conditionally, if target hooks indicate

[Bug bootstrap/77593] [7 Regression] Bootstrap failure with configure-target-libgfortran " cygwin64 Windows 10 anniversary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77593 --- Comment #12 from n8tm at aol dot com --- On 9/25/2016 3:03 PM, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77593 > > --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle --- > (In reply to tprince from comment #8) >> I

[Bug lto/61043] LTO accumulates CPU requirements from all input objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61043 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/61043] LTO accumulates CPU requirements from all input objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61043 --- Comment #8 from andysem at mail dot ru --- Created attachment 39751 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39751=edit A new testcase which produces invalid code with gcc 5.4

[Bug lto/61043] LTO accumulates CPU requirements from all input objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61043 andysem at mail dot ru changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

On 10/04/16 10:38, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Bill Seurer wrote: parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const': parameter_handler.cc:777:28: error: ISO C++ forbids comparison between

Re: [PATCH] Fix -Wimplicit-fallthrough -C, handle some more comment styles and comments in between FALLTHRU comment and label

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:58:17PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 1 Oct 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > - /* ... fall through for unsigned ints ... */ > > > + /* fall through */ > > > > > > -/* For other instructions, fallthru. */ > > > +

Re: [PATCH] Fix -Wimplicit-fallthrough -C, handle some more comment styles and comments in between FALLTHRU comment and label

Hi, On Sat, 1 Oct 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > - /* ... fall through for unsigned ints ... */ > > + /* fall through */ > > > > -/* For other instructions, fallthru. */ > > +/* fallthru. */ > > > > - /* fall thru to manual case */ > > +

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

On 4 October 2016 at 16:51, wrote: > >> On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On 4 October 2016 at 16:41, wrote: >>> On Oct 3, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: In a

[Bug tree-optimization/77824] unreachable code in SLSR GIMPLE pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824 --- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt --- Eric, thanks for the report! I'll have a look. Much obliged. This used to work several years ago...

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

> On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 4 October 2016 at 16:41, wrote: >> >>> On Oct 3, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention >>>

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

On 4 October 2016 at 16:41, wrote: > >> On Oct 3, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> >> In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention >> commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments >> in calls to functions taking

[Bug tree-optimization/71661] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71661 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #4

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

I'd +1 vote to send them a patch. I've had to do this for other compilers. If you need a hand, I can give you some tips on how to do that and also where to check if this has already been fixed. Thanks On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/04/2016 09:41 AM,

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Bill Seurer wrote: > parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double > ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const': > parameter_handler.cc:777:28: error: ISO C++ forbids comparison between > pointer and integer [-fpermissive] >

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

On 10/04/2016 09:41 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Bill Seurer wrote: parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const':

[Bug c++/77791] ICE on invalid C++11 code with redefined function parameter: tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl minimal’ structure, have ‘error_mark’ in cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt, at

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77791 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Oct 4 15:34:16 2016 New Revision: 240751 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240751=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/77791 * parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt): Only

Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

> On Oct 3, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention > commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments > in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment > along the lines of > > foo (1,

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Bill Seurer wrote: > > parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double > > ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const': > > parameter_handler.cc:777:28: error: ISO

[Bug lto/65239] typeinfo / VTT for some classes not visibile in shared library when LTO is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65239 andysem at mail dot ru changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andysem at mail dot ru ---

Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

parameter_handler.cc: In member function 'double ParameterHandler::get_double(const string&) const': parameter_handler.cc:777:28: error: ISO C++ forbids comparison between pointer and integer [-fpermissive] AssertThrow ((s.c_str()!='\0') || (*endptr == '\0'), ^

[Bug middle-end/77844] Compilation of simple C++ example exhaust memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77844 --- Comment #2 from graeser at mi dot fu-berlin.de --- With gcc 5.4.0 on Ubuntu this issue seems to be essentially fixed. However, compilation still takes about 14s and eats up about 1gb which looks huge compared to 0.1s and 31mb if the

RE: Fix PR tree-optimization/77808, ICE in duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630 starting with r240439

Richard Biener writes: > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Doug Gilmore > wrote: > > My commit r240439 didn't handle the situation where setting --param > > prefetch-latency=0 can cause the prefetch address to be the same as > > the original

[Bug tree-optimization/77808] [7 Regression] ICE in duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630 starting with r240439

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77808 --- Comment #1 from mpf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: mpf Date: Tue Oct 4 15:28:23 2016 New Revision: 240749 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240749=gcc=rev Log: Fix PR tree-optimization/77808 gcc/ PR tree-optimization/77808

Re: [PATCH] Fix bootstrap with --enable-languages=all,go

On 10/03/2016 06:53 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: Andrew Haley writes: On 30/09/16 23:16, Rainer Orth wrote: me too, though mostly to have maximum test coverage (primarily on Solaris). As expected, a x86_64-apple-darwin16 bootstrap with --enable-objc-gc just failed for me. I'm

Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix ICE during C++11 lambda error recovery (PR c++/77791)

OK. On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > In param_list some entries could be error_mark_node, we should just ignore > those. ALso, this patch optimizes by testing cxx_dialect < cxx14 just once. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and

Re: [PATCH] fix PR c++/77804 - ICE on placement VLA new

OK. On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > The attached patch removes an assumption from the implementation > of the -Wplacement-new warning that the size of the array type > enclosed in parentheses and accepted by G++ as an extension is > constant. The

  1   2   3   >