On 10/09/2018 01:31 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 09/10/18 07:25 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
As we talked one day I would like to make all iterator operators
global for consistency. So here is the patch to do so for std::list
iterators.
By "global" you mean "non-member", right?
Yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #16)
> The warning code considers just the argument to the call. It doesn't know
> (and in the constant case can't tell) where the argument came from. It
> would need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72751
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69971
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> Yes, the warning does exist to warn about unsafe calls to the function (I
> added it here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg01702.html).
> This bug
On Oct 10, 2018, JonY <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 03:24 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 2018, JonY <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Now, if you wish it to affect Cygwin as well, I could implement that,
>> and drop -mingw from the option name. I'd retain the current defaults
On 10/10/2018 03:24 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2018, JonY <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is fine to turn it on by default in 32bit MinGW (i686-*-mingw*), but
>> leave the defaults as is for others like Cygwin, I am not too sure of
>> the effects for Cygwin.
>
> Cygwin already
On Oct 9, 2018, JonY <10wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is fine to turn it on by default in 32bit MinGW (i686-*-mingw*), but
> leave the defaults as is for others like Cygwin, I am not too sure of
> the effects for Cygwin.
Cygwin already has --large-address-aware enabled, without an option to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning code considers just the argument to the call. It doesn't know (and
in the constant case can't tell) where the argument came from. It would need
to be reworked to tell the difference (e.g.,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80351
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79707
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87571
Bug ID: 87571
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in friend_accessible_p, accessing
protected member of template friend inside template
class
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86747
François-R Boyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Francois-R.Boyer at PolyMtl
dot ca
This patch renames the "error" callback within libcpp
to "diagnostic", and uses the pair of enums in cpplib.h, rather
than passing two different kinds of "int" around.
Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Committed to trunk as r264999.
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
*
Fixed all issues pointed in the previous iteration.
There is now a significant change regarding how the sin(atan(x))
constant is calculated, as now it checks for which values such that
computing 1 + x*x won't overflow. There are two reasons for this
change: (1) Avoid an intermediate infinity value
On 10/08/2018 03:36 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
PR87507 shows a problem where IRA assigns a non-volatile TImode reg pair to
a pseudo when there is a volatile reg pair available to use. This then
causes us to emit save/restore code for the non-volatile reg usage.
The problem here is that the only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks Martin and Marc for the explanations. The warning sounds a lot more
definite than "there is some possible execution where the value is too large".
The phrasing of the warning makes it look like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:19 PM David Malcolm wrote:
> + /* Emulation of a "move" constructor, but really a copy
> + constructor. */
> +
> + name_hint (const name_hint )
> + : m_suggestion (other.m_suggestion),
> +m_deferred (const_cast (other).take_deferred ())
> + {
> + }
> +
> +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87570
Bug ID: 87570
Summary: Rejects valid alias template usage (as a type pack
size requirement)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
> On Jul 17, 2018, at 9:36 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:08 PM Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
...
>>>
>>> There is not enough information for anyone to help you without
>>> reproducing the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84423
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 9 21:16:09 2018
New Revision: 264996
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264996=gcc=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-10-09 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/84423
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86731
--- Comment #6 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Tue Oct 9 20:55:25 2018
New Revision: 264994
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264994=gcc=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-10-09 Will Schmidt
Backport from trunk.
2018-09-06
On Tue, Oct 09 2018, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Utilizing rtags' --find-dead-functions I'm suggesting a removal of part
> of the functions reported with the script. I built all cross compilers
> defined in contrib/config-list.mk and I fixed VMS targets that I broke
> in previous removal.
>
> If
* Jeff Law:
> On 03/29/2018 08:00 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This patch performs lazy initialization of the relevant CPUID feature
>> register value. It will needlessly invoke the CPUID determination code
>> on architectures which lack CPUID support or support for the feature
>> register, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87567
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
OK.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:49 PM Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 09/10/18 17:17, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:27 PM Paolo Carlini
> > wrote:
> >> Hi again,
> >>
> >> On 9/28/18 9:15 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >>> Thanks. About the location, you are certainly right,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87569
Bug ID: 87569
Summary: defining type in ‘sizeof’ expression is invalid in C++
references wrong operator
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> Why does it think we're calling it with max_size()?
_M_check_len contains a path (hopefully not taken, but gcc doesn't see that)
where it returns max_size(),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Another thing is the too complicated alias check where for
>
> (gdb) p debug_data_reference (dr_a.dr)
> #(Data Ref:
> # bb: 14
> # stmt: _28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83522
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Oct 9 18:03:31 2018
New Revision: 264990
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264990=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-10-09 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/83522
* resolve.c
Hi,
On 09/10/18 17:17, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:27 PM Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi again,
On 9/28/18 9:15 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Thanks. About the location, you are certainly right, but doesn't seem
trivial. Something we can do *now* is using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Oct 9 17:23:06 2018
New Revision: 264989
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264989=gcc=rev
Log:
i386: Use TImode for BLKmode values in 2 integer registers
When passing and
In the C++ FE, after emitting various errors about unrecognized names,
the parser can call
suggest_alternatives_for
and/or
suggest_alternative_in_explicit_scope.
These can issue zero or more suggestions for the unrecognized name,
or various other "note" diagnostics suggesting how to fix the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87370
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Oct 9 17:17:41 2018
New Revision: 264987
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264987=gcc=rev
Log:
i386: Use TImode for BLKmode values in 2 integer registers
When passing and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86659
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Oct 9 17:16:24 2018
New Revision: 264986
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264986=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86659
* gimple-match.h (gimple_match_op
> 2018-09-28 Eric Botcazou
>
> PR tree-optimization/86659
> * gimple-match.h (struct gimple_match_op): Add reverse field.
Jonathan privately remarked that the new member should probably be initialized
in the constructors (thanks!). Done thusly, applied on mainline as obvious.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #8)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #6)
> > > Happens at expand time. Diving in.
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #7)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #6)
> > Happens at expand time. Diving in.
>
> There's a giant if in expand_expr_real_1 with the
> Which version exactly (pkg list entire) of Solaris 11 are you running?
> I'm using gas 2.31 and /bin/ld on Solaris 11.4 resp. 11.5 Beta, where
> Bernd's patch in PR bootstrap/87551 fixed the remaining regressions.
Solaris 11.3 with Gas 2.30.
--
Eric Botcazou
This patch by Cherry Zhang skips the testSetPanicOnFault tests when
using gollvm. LLVM doesn't support non-call exceptions. This test was
passing more or less by luck: if the faulting instruction is between
two calls with the same landing pad (in instruction layout order, not
the program's logic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87568
Bug ID: 87568
Summary: Gfortran compile fails with bogus error message.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87563
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87567
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87567
Bug ID: 87567
Summary: constexpr evaluation rejects call to non-constexpr
function
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
There is a call to malloc(SIZE_MAX - 15) in GIMPLE, as a result of the
conditional and I believe jump threading. Just after thread1 we see this in
the vrp1 dump:
[local count: 32272892]:
# _91 = PHI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87565
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
PLT trampolines all end with 'ldr pc, [ip, xxx]!', so do all calls via PLT
suffer from poor branch prediction of such indirect jumps?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83256
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Unless someone can identify a commit that deliberately fixed the bug *and
added appropriate tests to the testsuite*, I'd strongly advise adding
tests to the testsuite before marking FIXED
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:27 PM Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On 9/28/18 9:15 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > Thanks. About the location, you are certainly right, but doesn't seem
> > trivial. Something we can do *now* is using
> > declspecs->locations[ds_typedef] and
This change is aimed at getting rid of spurious -Wuninitialized warnings
issued for small records passed by copy and containing default values
for some of their components.
The source of the problem is that the _Init parameter of the
initialization routine is declared as an in/out parameter, so
GNATprove does not have sometimes the precise information of the
compiler about size of types and objects, so that it cannot evaluate the
expressions in pragma Compile_Time_Error/Warning the same way the
compiler does. Thus, these pragmas should be ignored in GNATprove mode,
as it can neither
This fixlet gets rid of a spurious error issued in the specific case of
a call to a subprogram taking an Out parameter of a discriminated record
type without default discriminants, if the actual parameter is the
result of the conversion to the record type of a variable whose type is
derived from
The back-end was recently changed to issue more -Wuninitialized warnings
on Out parameters and this has caught a case related to
Ada.Iterator_Interface.: This patchlet simply kills this uninteresting
warning.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-10-09 Eric Botcazou
gcc/ada/
This fixes a recent regression introduced in the compiler for the
inlined renaming of a subprogram instantiated in a package body. It was
wrongly clearing the Is_Public flag on the entity associated with the
body.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk
2018-10-09 Eric Botcazou
This patch removes an improper error message on a visibility change in
an aspect expression between the freeze point and the end of the
declaration list, when the expression involves a call to a instance of
Unchecked_Conversion and the enclosing package declaration has a package
body with multiple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87565
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Not a good idea. Modern CPUs often don't predict such operations correctly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Happens at expand time. Diving in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> At the same time, since the call malloc(SIZE_MAX) is guaranteed to fail, GCC
> could fold it to zero
But there is no call to malloc(SIZE_MAX), GCC is confused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can make these changes to libstdc++, but why is the compiler warning anyway?
It says:
In function ‘T* my_allocator::allocate(std::size_t, const void*) [with T =
int]’,
inlined from ‘void
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:28 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2018, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:05 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This tries to apply the same trick to sminmax reduction patterns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86815
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
--- Comment #30 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #29)
>
> So maybe it's worth splitting up into sub-issues?
It'd be better to, yes. But at the moment I don't have a lot of time to go
through all the cases and factor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87566
Bug ID: 87566
Summary: ICE with class(*) and select
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85153
Peter Maydell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter.maydell at linaro dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87565
Bug ID: 87565
Summary: suboptimal memory-indirect tailcalls on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 10:56 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 09/21/2018 04:09 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > This is v2 of the patch; I managed to bit-rot my own patch due to
> > my
> > fix for r264335, which tightened up the "is this meaningful"
> > threshold
> > on edit distances when finding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83256
Peter Maydell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter.maydell at linaro dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85890
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And fixed on trunk by r258116
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83256
--- Comment #2 from Peter Maydell ---
Created attachment 44817
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44817=edit
repro for similar bug, apparently broken up to 8.3 but fixed in trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82793
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77698
--- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen ---
I also see the loop now being aligned when I apply your patch.
srdi 10,10,2
mtctr 10
.p2align 4,,15
.L6:
ld 9,0(11)
ld 8,0(4)
Hi,
On 09/10/18 15:33, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 14:30, Paul Koning wrote:
I'm trying to build the current code on Linux with GCC 4.3.2 (stock compiler in
Fedora 10 which is my old test system). It fails like this:
In file included from
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:33 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 14:30, Paul Koning wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to build the current code on Linux with GCC 4.3.2 (stock
> > compiler in Fedora 10 which is my old test system). It fails like this:
> >
> > In file included from
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79768
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 14:30, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> I'm trying to build the current code on Linux with GCC 4.3.2 (stock compiler
> in Fedora 10 which is my old test system). It fails like this:
>
> In file included from
> /mnt/hgfs/pkoning/Documents/svn/gcc/gcc/tree-data-ref.h:27,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83409
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
I'm trying to build the current code on Linux with GCC 4.3.2 (stock compiler in
Fedora 10 which is my old test system). It fails like this:
In file included from
/mnt/hgfs/pkoning/Documents/svn/gcc/gcc/tree-data-ref.h:27,
from
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:05 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This tries to apply the same trick to sminmax reduction patterns
> > > as for the reduc_plus_scal ones, namely reduce %zmm -> %ymm ->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> Richi is it fixed?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Richi is it fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85890
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|NEW
Hi!
As the following testcase additions show, even the TYPE_MAX_VALUE var needs
to be forced into temporary if it is a user variable, otherwise if that
variable is changed by the user before taskgroup ends, we don't handle it
correctly.
In addition to that, this patch removes useless NULL second
The typedefs for common specializations of std::__cxx11::basic_string do
not need to be in the std::__cxx11 namespace. Those typedefs are never
used for linkage purposes so don't appear in mangled names, and so don't
need to be distinct from the equivalent typedefs for the COW
std::basic_string
Hi Bernd,
>> * The merge-all-constants-2.c test doesn't FAIL on Solaris/SPARC with
>>/bin/as, although it lacks string merging support, too. The assembler
>>output contains
>>
>> .section".rodata"
>>
>>so the pattern currently used to check for .rodata is too
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
--- Comment #11 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes I remember spending a while to get it to reduce further. But it needs a big
constructor to fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87561
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87468
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
On 10/03/18 18:31, Jeff Law wrote:
>> - && (len = int_size_in_bytes (TREE_TYPE (decl))) > 0
>> - && TREE_STRING_LENGTH (decl) >= len)
>> + && (len = int_size_in_bytes (TREE_TYPE (decl))) >= 0
>> + && TREE_STRING_LENGTH (decl) == len)
> Not sure why you want to test for >= 0
Hi Richard,
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 08:28
> To: Tamar Christina
> Cc: Jeff Law ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd
> ; i...@airs.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH][GCC][mid-end] Add a hook to support telling the mid-
> end when to probe the stack
Hi.
In non-LTO mode, we should not set hotness according to computed histogram
in ipa-profile. Following patch does that and fixes the test-case isolated
from PR.
Patch survives regression tests on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Ready for trunk?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-10-09 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85114
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Now confirmed!
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
