Richard, I was looking into a testsuite failure on the 4.7 branch
on sparc and I think your fix for 52584 would fix it too.
The problem eminates in gcc.c-torture/execute/vector-shift2.c with -O0
The 4 integer vector shifts get lowered to 2 integer vector shifts,
since that is what the VIS3
On 05/17/2012 12:14 AM, Benjamin De Kosnik wrote:
Allows use of --enable-symvers=gnu-versioned-namespace while
configuring in libjava. The rest of the target libs that use
--enable-symvers already handle this. As per libstdc++/52700.
Pretty simple, but will wait for OK for trunk/branch
On 05/17/2012 10:33 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Paolo Carlinipaolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
On 05/17/2012 09:48 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Can we concisely characterize those messages and exclude them from the
gcc_assert?
Well, if don't quickly figure out
I've committed this patch of Kwok's, which adds some additional Coldfire
51-series cores. I committed the binutils part yesterday.
nathan
2012-05-17 Kwok Cheung Yeung k...@codesourcery.com
* config/m68k/m68k-devices.def: Add 51ag, 51je, 51jf, 51jg, 51mm,
51qm.
*
Hi,
when I was upding ipa-reference.c to LTO I took the easiest possible approach
keeping it to work only on statics without address taken at compile time and
propagate at linktime. The idea was that soonish we will replace it by something
more sane.
Well, this did not happen yet and this hack
On 16 May 2012 20:41, Tom Tromey tro...@redhat.com wrote:
Manuel * Hitting auto-completion in GDB means staring at the window for 5-10
Manuel minutes until it decides to stop listing stuff.
Report completion bugs to gdb. There's only so much gdb can do here.
But maybe we could have some
Hi,
this is a rather simple PR about us not rejecting rvalue reference catch
parameters. When I looked into it I noticed that we also aren't
explicitly handling abstract types (which now in C++11 are explicitly
mentioned in [except.handle]): eventually we rejected those but with a
quite poor
On 02/05/12 14:55, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Earnshawrearn...@arm.com writes:
On 02/05/12 14:00, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Jim MacArthurjim.macart...@arm.com writes:
New Changelog text:
2012-05-02 Jim MacArthurjim.macart...@arm.com
* recog.c (reg_fits_class_p): Check both regno and
OK.
Jason
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
* announce_function dumps slow down Emacs (and the shell when working
via SSH) when debugging anything related to libstdc++ (or any large
testcase).
Let's make -quiet the default.
Agreed.
(I had always reflexively
On May 16, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
I see now that any change in the underlying implementation becomes a
serious annoyance for you.
No, it is easy, we just need a low cost solution by which people can use the
normal accessors. Once that is provided,
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Sterling Augustine
saugust...@google.com wrote:
The enclosed patch fixes many issues with pubnames and pubtypes. It generates
them for many more variables and with mostly correct and canonical dwarf
names.
This patch should not affect any target that does not
Hi, ok for approval?
Thanks,
-Han
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM, shen...@google.com wrote:
On 2012/05/16 23:30:28, Diego Novillo wrote:
On 12-05-16 19:22 , mailto:jin...@google.com wrote:
In my opinion, gcc/ChangeLog is for upstream commits only.
It is fine that you want to port
On 12-05-17 12:27 , Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
Hi, ok for approval?
OK.
Diego.
On 2012/5/17 01:55 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I'm guessing these changes are the cause of a full C bootstrap
(--disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx) failure I'm seeing on trunk. The
*_handle_option_auto function prototypes are not seen in options.c, and
-Werror -Wmissing-prototypes are in
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Chung-Lin Tang
clt...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 2012/5/17 01:55 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I'm guessing these changes are the cause of a full C bootstrap
(--disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx) failure I'm seeing on trunk. The
*_handle_option_auto
On 17 May 2012 19:25, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Chung-Lin Tang
clt...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 2012/5/17 01:55 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I'm guessing these changes are the cause of a full C bootstrap
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 May 2012 19:25, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Chung-Lin
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
Seeing as how Uros is starting to go down the path of cleaning up the
flags handling for x86, I thought I'd go ahead and knock up the idea
that I've been tossing around to help automate the process of building
patterns
On 05/17/12 10:59, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Are you still working on this for GCC 4.8?
Not actively.
r~
Hi.
This is a slightly modified version of my previous patch.
ref: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00962.html
The only change is to make the result of the functions an int
instead of a const pointer.
This lets them be used in places where the code is using
non-const pointers
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:56 AM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
I've noticed this failure for some time but never got around to
inspecting things. The X=34.53 case seem to need a precision
allowance bump.
Ok for mainline and 4.7 branch?
OK.
Ciao!
Steven
On 12-05-17 10:52 , Michael Matz wrote:
Cross the bridge when you reach it, not before. Not everybody agrees that
the splitting of tree would be a good idea. Right now templates aren't
necessary, so you shouldn't use them. (well, and an investigation why
they come up with smaller .text would
On 05/17/2012 09:47 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2012 05:06 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 05/17/2012 10:33 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I am still puzzled by why we need to assert, as opposed to just
ignore, unless we have a plan to make a wholesale move -- but even
there I am bit
nervous.
Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, May 17, 2012, Meador Inge meadori ar codesourcery dot com wrote:
;; This is *not* equal to zero because the upper
;; two bytes are undefined.
(insn 14 13 15 2 (set (reg:SI 142)
(subreg:SI (reg:QI 141) 0))
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL
On May 17, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 05/17/2012 09:47 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2012 05:06 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 05/17/2012 10:33 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I am still puzzled by why we need to assert, as opposed to just
ignore, unless we have a plan to make a
On 17 May 2012, at 21:16, Mike Stump wrote:
On May 17, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 05/17/2012 09:47 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2012 05:06 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 05/17/2012 10:33 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I am still puzzled by why we need to assert, as opposed
On 05/17/2012 03:02 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
After agonising over this for a couple of days, I think it's probably
the correct fix. What we're doing now would be valid if the only use of
equiv_constant(x) were to substitute for x. The name and current use
of the function obviously
Lawrence == Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com writes:
Tom Doesn't this mean that if you have checking enabled, and you use the
Tom wrong macro on some tree, cc1 will crash? That seems like a distinct
Tom minus to me.
Lawrence Yes, it does mean that, but it is a net overall improvement.
It is a
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
Michael.
PR tree-optimization/18437
* tree-vectorizer.h
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tom Tromey tro...@redhat.com wrote:
Lawrence == Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com writes:
Tom Doesn't this mean that if you have checking enabled, and you use the
Tom wrong macro on some tree, cc1 will crash? That seems like a distinct
Tom minus to me.
On 5/17/12, Tom Tromey tro...@redhat.com wrote:
Lawrence == Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com writes:
Tom Doesn't this mean that if you have checking enabled, and you use
Tom the wrong macro on some tree, cc1 will crash? That seems like
Tom a distinct minus to me.
Lawrence Yes, it does mean
This patch gives up on using the reassociation rank algorithm to
correctly place __builtin_powi calls and their feeding multiplies. In
the end this proved to introduce more complexity than it saved, due in
part to the poor fit of introducing DAG expressions into the
reassociated operand tree.
On 2012/5/18 03:20 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
Joseph, how does this look? It makes the default post-stage1 C++
bootstrap fail similarly without the other options.c Makefile change, so
I guess it works as intended.
For build system patches you
34 matches
Mail list logo
