[Bug tree-optimization/77937] [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 --- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- It still happens, but on another unit this time: markus@x4 ffmpeg % cat h264dsp.i extern int fn2(int); extern int fn3(int); int a, b, c; void fn1(long p1) { char *d; for (;; d += p1) { d[0] =

Re: libgo patch committed: Fixes for sparc64

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Ian Lance Taylor

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR77937

On 2016.10.12 at 20:14 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 reports an ICE in SLSR > where a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR occurs with a candidate increment of -1. This > is supposed to be prevented by code in analyze_increments, since replacement > of such a

Re: Set nonnull attribute to ptr_info_def based on VRP

Hi Richard, what does this try to do? Preserve info VRP computed across PTA? I think we didn't yet sort out the nonlocal/escaped vs. null handling properly (or how PTA should handle get_ptr_nonnull). The way you are using it asks for pt.null to be orthogonal to nonlocal/escaped and thus

Re: [vrp] use get_ptr_nonnull in tree-vrp

Hi Richard, On 13/10/16 05:53, kugan wrote: Hi Richard, On 12/10/16 23:24, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:56 AM, kugan wrote: Hi, This patch uses get_ptr_nonnull in tree-vrp. Bootstrapped and regression tested this with other patched

Re: libgo patch committed: Fixes for sparc64

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> This patch to libgo by James Clarke fixes libgo for sparc64.

Re: libgo patch committed: Fixes for sparc64

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> This patch to libgo by James Clarke fixes libgo for sparc64. The >> getrandom syscall was being ignored because the file was named >>

[Bug tree-optimization/77937] [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 --- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt --- Keeping this open until the fix has some burn-in time, planning to backport to GCC 6 and 5.

[PATCH] Fix PR77937

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 reports an ICE in SLSR where a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR occurs with a candidate increment of -1. This is supposed to be prevented by code in analyze_increments, since replacement of such a candidate is not guaranteed to be profitable. The test for this

[Bug middle-end/77959] ICE in ix86_decompose_address, at i386/i386.c:14954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77959 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4) > Looks like middle-end problem to me: Maybe turning on RTL checking will find the problem is located.

[Bug tree-optimization/77937] [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Thu Oct 13 01:08:20 2016 New Revision: 241082 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241082=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-12 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug c++/77731] Parameter pack expansion doesn't work when used to define argument list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77731 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[PATCH] Don't unnecessarily create stack protector guard decls and MEMs (PR target/77957)

Hi! PR77957 is likely a rs6000 backend bug where a useless memory load causes .LCTOC0 undefined reference in the end at -O0 and as such should be fixed, but I think it is completely unnecessary to create those loads at all if we know we are going to ignore it in the stack_protect_{set,test}

[Bug c++/77945] GCC generates invalid constexpr copy/move assignment operators for types with trailing padding.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77945 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at redhat dot com,

[PATCH] Fix -Wimplicit-fallthrough ICE (PR c/77946)

Hi! Seems 2 functions in varasm.c just use TREE_PUBLIC on LABEL_DECLs together with other kinds of decls, but as TREE_PUBLIC on LABEL_DECLs means now something different, it breaks badly. While I could change those 2 functions in varasm.c, I'm afraid other functions might be doing something

[Bug c++/77927] unary right fold fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77927 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [PATCH 01/16] read-md.c: Add various cleanups to ~rtx_reader

Sorry, haven't had time to read the full series yet, but: David Malcolm writes: > On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 17:51 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> On 10/05/2016 06:14 PM, David Malcolm wrote: >> > The selftests for the RTL frontend require supporting multiple >> > reader instances

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:36 PM, François Dumont wrote: > On 10/10/2016 23:01, Tim Song wrote: >> >> Trying again...with a few edits. >> >>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:24 PM, François Dumont >>> wrote: >>> >>> @@ -602,24 +612,32 @@

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Marc Mutz from comment #12) > Is replacing a matching comment with __attribute__(fallthrough)) so > complicated as to make this a wontfix? It is not really possible.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817 --- Comment #12 from Marc Mutz --- Is replacing a matching comment with __attribute__(fallthrough)) so complicated as to make this a wontfix?

[Visium] Fix gcc.dg/compat/scalar-by-value-4/scalar-return-4

There is a missing big-endian correction when types smaller than a word are passed through va_arg without promotion like _Complex char. Tested on visium-elf, applied on the mainline. 2016-10-12 Eric Botcazou * config/visium/visium.c (visium_gimplify_va_arg):

[PATCH 3/3] Extend -falign-FOO=N to N[,M[,N2[,M2]]]

falign-functions=N is too simplistic. Ingo Molnar ran some tests and it seems that on latest x86 CPUs, 64-byte alignment of functions runs fastest (he tried many other possibilites): this way, after a call CPU can fetch a lot of insns in the first cacheline fill. However, developers are less

[PATCH 0/3] Extend -falign-FOO=N to N[,M[,N2[,M2]]] version 4

These patches are for this bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66240 "RFE: extend -falign-xyz syntax" The test program: int g(); int f(int i) { i *= 3; while (--i > 100) { L1:if (g()) goto L1; if (g()) goto L2; } return

[PATCH 2/3] Temporary remove "at least 8 byte alignment" code from x86

This change drops forced alignment to 8 if requested alignment is higher than 8: before the patch, -falign-functions=9 was generating .p2align 4,,8 .p2align 3 which means: "align to 16 if the skip is 8 bytes or less; else align to 8". After this change, ".p2align 3" is not

[PATCH 1/3] Remove support for obsolete x86 -malign-foo options

2016-09-27 Denys Vlasenko * config/i386/i386-common.c (ix86_handle_option): Remove support for obsolete -malign-loops, -malign-jumps and -malign-functions options. * config/i386/i386.opt: Likewise. Index: gcc/common/config/i386/i386-common.c

[Bug middle-end/77959] ICE in ix86_decompose_address, at i386/i386.c:14954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77959 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-*-* |x86_64-*-*, alphaev68-*-* --- Comment #5

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

On 10/10/2016 23:01, Tim Song wrote: Trying again...with a few edits. On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:24 PM, François Dumont wrote: @@ -602,24 +612,32 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION struct _Rb_tree_impl : public _Node_allocator { _Key_compare

[PATCH] Tweaks to print_rtx_function

On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 19:31 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/12/2016 07:48 PM, David Malcolm wrote: [...snip...] > > I think the only remaining item from our discussion above is what > > to do > > about the numbering of pseudos in the dumps (currently it just > > prints the regno > >

[Bug c++/55004] [meta-bug] constexpr issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004 Bug 55004 depends on bug 67333, which changed state. Bug 67333 Summary: [C++11][constexpr] constexpr functions incorrectly prohibit taking references to volatile types https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67333 What

[Bug c++/67333] [C++11][constexpr] constexpr functions incorrectly prohibit taking references to volatile types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67333 Melissa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[PATCH] (v2) Add a "compact" mode to print_rtx_function

On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 19:31 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/12/2016 07:48 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > This patch implements a "compact" mode for print_rtx_function, > > implementing most of the ideas above. > > > > Example of output can be seen here: > >

Re: [PATCH] [ARC] New option handling, refurbish multilib support.

* Claudiu Zissulescu [2016-10-10 15:26:47 +0200]: > Hi Andrew, > > This is updated patch of the original sent to mailing list some while ago. > > What is new: > - Do not use MULTILIB_REUSE as its semantic changed, and the old one was > causing issues

Re: [PATCH, GCC] Move MEMMODEL_* and enum memmodel from coretypes.h to memmodel.h

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > This patch is a follow up of [1] which aims to have all memory model related > declarations in memmodel.h. To achieve that, this patch moves memory model > related declaration from coretypes.h into memmodel.h. Note that since > memmodel.h is now

Re: [PATCH] Implement new hook for max_align_t_align

On 10/12/2016 10:17 AM, John David Anglin wrote: > On 2016-10-12 9:48 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:52:04AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: dropping the alignment means that the padding before

[Bug middle-end/77959] ICE in ix86_decompose_address, at i386/i386.c:14954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77959 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |middle-end --- Comment #4 from Uroš

Re: [RFC] Possible folding opportunities for string built-ins

On 10/12/2016 08:55 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Martin Liška wrote: Last question is whether one can aggressively fold strcasecmp in a host compiler? Or are there any situations where results depends on locale? There are the usual issues with Turkish locales having the

Re: [patch] aarch64-*-freebsd* support for gcc.

Hi Jeff, On 10.10.16 23:10, Jeff Law wrote: On 10/10/2016 03:07 PM, Andreas Tobler wrote: Hi all, the attached patch brings support for the aarch64-*-freebsd* target. Bootstraped and tested, results on the list. Not that many results due to board instabilities I lack a cavium ;) Ok for

[Bug tree-optimization/77937] [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt --- OK, I can reproduce now, and understand the problem better. This patch fixes the problem. I'll regstrap it and get it committed shortly. Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

Re: New option -flimit-function-alignment

On 10/11/2016 10:14 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 10/11/2016 04:23 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: This is better than current behavior, but this is not what I want. 15-byte function does not need to be aligned to 16 bytes on a machine with 128-byte L1I cachelines. It needs to be aligned to 128 bytes

[Bug target/77959] ICE in ix86_decompose_address, at i386/i386.c:14954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77959 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The ICE has been fixed between revisions r213007 (2014-07-24, ICE) and r213805 (2014-08-11, compiles).

[Bug c/38295] Support pointer difference as constant in static initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38295 --- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer --- Created attachment 39799 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39799=edit label.c (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > Not always since they could be in different sections via

[Bug target/77959] ICE in ix86_decompose_address, at i386/i386.c:14954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77959 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- No ICE with version 5.4.0 too.

[Bug libstdc++/65122] std::vector doesn't honor element alignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65122 Bug 65122 depends on bug 77742, which changed state. Bug 77742 Summary: Warning about placement new for over-aligned type https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77742 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/77742] Warning about placement new for over-aligned type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77742 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/77961] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_type failed, at tree.c:14085 ; gen_type_die_with_usage, at dwarf2out.c:22942

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77961 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

Re: [vrp] use get_ptr_nonnull in tree-vrp

Hi Richard, On 12/10/16 23:24, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:56 AM, kugan wrote: Hi, This patch uses get_ptr_nonnull in tree-vrp. Bootstrapped and regression tested this with other patched without any new regressions on x86_64-linux-gnu.

[Bug c++/77958] printf format checking -vs- variadic template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77958 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/77959] ICE in ix86_decompose_address, at i386/i386.c:14954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77959 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/77960] ICE in gfc_conv_ss_startstride, at fortran/trans-array.c:3966

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77960 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/77961] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_type failed, at tree.c:14085 ; gen_type_die_with_usage, at dwarf2out.c:22942

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77961 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug c++/77958] printf format checking -vs- variadic template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77958 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic CC|

Re: Questionable code in gcov-io.c

On 10/12/16 11:04, Andreas Schwab wrote: Do we still need to call fstat? I don't think it can ever fail here. Update removing the fstat. Survived a profiled bootstrap, so I'll commit tomorrow, unless there are further comments. Thanks for spotting this! nathan 2016-10-12 Nathan

Go patch committed: copy string code from Go 1.7 runtime

This patch to the Go frontend and libgo copies the string code from the Go 1.7 runtime. This mainly replaces some C code with Go code. This adds compiler support for turning concatenating strings into a call to a runtime function that takes the appropriate number of arguments. This renames some

Re: [PATCH] Implement new hook for max_align_t_align

On 2016-10-12 2:01 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 10/12/2016 06:14 PM, Jeff Law wrote: If the issue is strictly limited to 32 bit hpux, then do we really care? Can we just deprecate that platform and thus make the issue go away? Are we talking about HP-XX or Linux on PA-RISC? The patch was

[Bug c++/77742] Warning about placement new for over-aligned type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77742 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Wed Oct 12 18:04:51 2016 New Revision: 241073 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241073=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/77742 - -Waligned-new and placement new. * init.c

C++ PATCH for c++/77742 (-Waligned-new and placement new)

It doesn't make sense to warn about placement new of over-aligned types; most occurrences are likely to be doing this in order to provide properly aligned memory by allocating it first and then using the standard non-allocating placement new. Also, the discussion of -Waligned-new on HPPA led me

Re: [PATCH] Implement new hook for max_align_t_align

On 10/12/2016 06:14 PM, Jeff Law wrote: If the issue is strictly limited to 32 bit hpux, then do we really care? Can we just deprecate that platform and thus make the issue go away? Are we talking about HP-XX or Linux on PA-RISC? Thanks, Florian

Re: Potential bug with wide_int_storage::set_len

> During the development of a patch I encountered some strange behavior > and decided to investigate. The result of which is I think I found a bug > with 'wide_int_storage::set_len' in gcc/wide-int.h. > > The function reads: > inline void > wide_int_storage::set_len (unsigned int l, bool

[Bug fortran/77961] New: ICE: verify_type failed, at tree.c:14085 ; gen_type_die_with_usage, at dwarf2out.c:22942

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77961 Bug ID: 77961 Summary: ICE: verify_type failed, at tree.c:14085 ; gen_type_die_with_usage, at dwarf2out.c:22942 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/77960] New: ICE in gfc_conv_ss_startstride, at fortran/trans-array.c:3966

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77960 Bug ID: 77960 Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_ss_startstride, at fortran/trans-array.c:3966 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/77959] New: ICE in ix86_decompose_address, at i386/i386.c:14954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77959 Bug ID: 77959 Summary: ICE in ix86_decompose_address, at i386/i386.c:14954 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/77958] New: printf format checking -vs- variadic template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77958 Bug ID: 77958 Summary: printf format checking -vs- variadic template functions Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: libgo patch committed: Fixes for sparc64

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > This patch to libgo by James Clarke fixes libgo for sparc64. The > getrandom syscall was being ignored because the file was named > "sparc". The clone syscall apparently needs special attention on > SPARC. Bootstrapped

[Bug c++/77911] Comparing function pointers in a constexpr function can produce an error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77911 --- Comment #3 from Dr Hilbert Swan --- A generous fellow offered me this workaround for the time being: void test1(){} void test2(){} void test3(){} void test4(){} #define FUNCTION_LIST test1, test2, test3, test4 template

Re: [PATCH] Add a "compact" mode to print_rtx_function

On 10/12/2016 07:48 PM, David Malcolm wrote: This patch implements a "compact" mode for print_rtx_function, implementing most of the ideas above. Example of output can be seen here: https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2016-10-12/test-switch-compact.rtl which can be contrasted with the

[Bug c/77909] -Wimplicit-fallthrough: accept more comment variants

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77909 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

Re: [PATCH] Implement new hook for max_align_t_align

On 2016-10-12 12:14 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 10/12/2016 02:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:52:04AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: dropping the alignment means that the padding before the lock member vanishes. Consequently, we have just created a silent ABI change in

[PATCH] Add a "compact" mode to print_rtx_function

On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 15:58 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 10/07/2016 03:26 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > We could simply print the INSN_UID for CODE_LABELs; something like > > this > > (see the "(code_label 16" below): > > I think that should work. > > > You appear to have trimmed the

Re: PING! [Fortran, Patch, PR72832, v1] [6/7 Regression] [OOP] ALLOCATE with SOURCE fails to allocate requested dimensions

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:50:10AM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote: > Ping! > > Updated patch with the comments gotten so far. > > Ok for trunk? > Looks good to me. -- Steve

[Bug c++/50800] Internal compiler error in finish_member_declarations, possibly related to may_alias attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Version|4.6.1

[Bug bootstrap/77917] ARM/AARCH64 bootstrap-lto fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77917 --- Comment #6 from PeteVine --- Indeed, gold is definitely a factor, but look what happens after switching back to ld.bfd on ARM: make[6]: Entering directory `/home/guest/gcc-svn-master/build/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libstdc++-v3/src' /bin/bash

Re: [PATCH][check_GNU_style.sh] More aggressively ignore dg-xxx directives

On 10/12/2016 06:43 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 12/10/16 11:18, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 12/10/16 10:57, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 11/10/16 20:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:11:04PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: Also, the pattern that starts with "/\+\+\+" looks like

Re: Potential bug with wide_int_storage::set_len

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:45:39PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 05:02:46PM +0100, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > > Say you are running it on a 64-bit host: > > #define HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT 64 > > > > and you call 'result.set_len (1, false);' > > > > Then this will sign

Re: Potential bug with wide_int_storage::set_len

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 05:02:46PM +0100, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > Say you are running it on a 64-bit host: > #define HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT 64 > > and you call 'result.set_len (1, false);' > > Then this will sign extend the first element of val, to > 0x, and I don't think

[Fortran, Patch, cosmetics] Fix some indentation and typos in comments.

Hi all, I have committed attached patch as obvious as r241071, because it just corrects some indentation issues and a typo in a comment. Bootstrapped and regtested ok on x86_64-linux/f23. Regards, Andre -- Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de Index: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog

[Bug target/77957] [6/7 Regression] Undefined .LCTOC0 with -fstack-protector-strong -mminimal-toc -O0 on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77957 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 39798 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39798=edit gcc7-pr77957.patch One of the problems is that for TARGET_THREAD_SSP_OFFSET targets we completely wastefully create a

[Bug libgomp/66553] openmp tasks produce libgomp warnings with fsanitize=thread

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66553 --- Comment #3 from Julian Taylor --- Would adding a libgomp threadsanitizer configure switch be an option? It could enable --disable-linux-futex which you need for omp critical sections, set the right compile and link flags and add some extra

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #10) > The testcase from PR77955: > > markus@x4 /tmp % cat fall.c > void bar(int); > > void foo(int i) { > switch (i) { > case 1: { > bar(1); > //

[Bug fortran/77903] gfortran 6.1.0/7.0.0 accept invalid code with conflicting module/submodule interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77903 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > That link worked for me. Thanks For me too. I think the reference C1556 (R1527) is rather C1255 (R1227) If MODULE appears in the prefix of a module subprogram, the subprogram shall specify the

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817 --- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- The testcase from PR77955: markus@x4 /tmp % cat fall.c void bar(int); void foo(int i) { switch (i) { case 1: { bar(1); // fall-through } case 2: bar(2); default: break; }

[Bug target/77957] [6/7 Regression] Undefined .LCTOC0 with -fstack-protector-strong -mminimal-toc -O0 on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77957 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target||powerpc64le-linux

[Bug target/77957] New: [6/7 Regression] Undefined .LCTOC0 with -fstack-protector-strong -mminimal-toc -O0 on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77957 Bug ID: 77957 Summary: [6/7 Regression] Undefined .LCTOC0 with -fstack-protector-strong -mminimal-toc -O0 on ppc64le Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/77955] -Wimplicit-fallthrough=1 issue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77955 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Re: [PATCH] Implement new hook for max_align_t_align

On 10/12/2016 02:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:52:04AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: dropping the alignment means that the padding before the lock member vanishes. Consequently, we have just created a silent ABI change in application code, which is a big no-no. Sure,

[PATCH, GCC] Move MEMMODEL_* and enum memmodel from coretypes.h to memmodel.h

Hi, This patch is a follow up of [1] which aims to have all memory model related declarations in memmodel.h. To achieve that, this patch moves memory model related declaration from coretypes.h into memmodel.h. Note that since memmodel.h is now included from libgcc it needs to have a runtime

Re: [PATCH, GCC/testsuite/ARM] Enable mov?i_movw tests on ARM and big endian

On 12/10/16 17:01, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 12 October 2016 at 17:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 12/10/16 16:29, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: Sorry :-( Here you are. Cheers, Thomas On 12/10/16 16:25, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 12/10/16 16:21, Thomas Preudhomme

Potential bug with wide_int_storage::set_len

Hello, During the development of a patch I encountered some strange behavior and decided to investigate. The result of which is I think I found a bug with 'wide_int_storage::set_len' in gcc/wide-int.h. The function reads: inline void wide_int_storage::set_len (unsigned int l, bool

Re: [PATCH, GCC/testsuite/ARM] Enable mov?i_movw tests on ARM and big endian

On 12 October 2016 at 17:50, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 12/10/16 16:29, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: >> >> Sorry :-( >> >> Here you are. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Thomas >> >> On 12/10/16 16:25, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/10/16 16:21, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:

Potential bug with wide_int_storage::set_len

Hello, During the development of a patch I encountered some strange behavior and decided to investigate. The result of which is I think I found a bug with 'wide_int_storage::set_len' in gcc/wide-int.h. The function reads: inline void wide_int_storage::set_len (unsigned int l, bool

Ping^4 Re: [Patch AArch64] Add floatdihf2 and floatunsdihf2 patterns

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:17:14PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:42:03AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:31:28AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:19:50AM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote: > > > > This patch

Re: [RFC] Possible folding opportunities for string built-ins

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Martin Liška wrote: > Last question is whether one can aggressively fold strcasecmp in a host > compiler? Or are there any situations where results depends on locale? There are the usual issues with Turkish locales having the uppercase version of 'i' being 'İ' and the

[Bug c/77955] -Wimplicit-fallthrough=1 issue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77955 --- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4) > It'll be hard to "fix" the first testcase: > . Thanks. The testcase from comment 3 is a dup of

Re: [PATCH] Implement new hook for max_align_t_align

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > I'd say what applies to PA should apply equally well to the pdp11 and > the alpha port ... > > But usually the question is just whether the port has a maintainer > and/or whether it is > a maintainance burden to keep it (say, last user of obsolete

Re: [PATCH, GCC/testsuite/ARM] Enable mov?i_movw tests on ARM and big endian

On 12/10/16 16:29, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: Sorry :-( Here you are. Cheers, Thomas On 12/10/16 16:25, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 12/10/16 16:21, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: Hi, As reported by Christophe Lyon, gcc.target/arm/movdi_movw test fails on big endian targets. This is because on big

Re: [PATCH][store merging][RFA] Re-implement merging code

On 10/10/16 12:15, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 10/10/16 11:22, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: Hi Richard, As I mentioned, here is the patch applying to the main store

Re: [PATCH 4/6] shrink-wrap: Shrink-wrapping for separate components

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 01:48:21PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > This is the main substance of this patch series. I forgot to update the changelog before, what I committed is: * function.c (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): Call try_shrink_wrapping_separate. Compute the

libgo patch committed: copy Go 1.7 runtime semaphore code

This patch to libgo copies the Go 1.7 runtime semaphore code into libgo, basically replacing sema.goc (written in C) with sema.go (writteh in Go). This triggered a check in releaseSudog that g.param not nil, because libgo uses the param field when starting a goroutine. Fixed by clearing g->param

[PATCH] Define std::sample for C++17

I forgot that std::sample() was added to C++17, so it wasn't in our status table. It is now. I changed the testcase to use our iterator wrappers instead of containers, which found some bugs. I intend to go through other tests where I've used std::forward_list to get forward iterators, or stream

[Bug fortran/77903] gfortran 6.1.0/7.0.0 accept invalid code with conflicting module/submodule interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77903 --- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at charter dot net --- On 10/11/2016 10:21 PM, damian at sourceryinstitute dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77903 > > --- Comment #4 from Damian Rouson --- > Check the date on your

  1   2   3   >