http://gcc.gnu.org/r196332
This is obvious fix for problem with empty macro parameter.
Instead of an empty parameter, 'n' is used.
Johann
PR target/56445
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_init_builtins): Use 'n' instead of empty
macro parameters with: FX_FTYPE_FX,
Hi,
aarch64_init_simd_buitlins is not declared with a prototype, but it
doesn't need one as it should be declared static.
This patch fixes the warning:
config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c:314:1: warning: no previous prototype for
‘aarch64_init_simd_builtins’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
Which is
Hi,
aarch64_mangle_type has no prototype, but it doesn't need one as
it should be declared static.
This patch fixes the warning:
config/aarch64/aarch64.c:5974:1: warning: no previous prototype for
‘aarch64_mangle_type’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
Which is hidden when building with g++, but looks
Hi,
In aarch64_float_const_representable, `sign' is unused.
This patch removes all references to it. The patch is equally
applicable to trunk and aarch64-4.7-branch.
This patch fixes the warning:
config/aarch64/aarch64.c: In function ‘aarch64_float_const_representable_p’:
Hi,
aarch64_simd_make_constant has no prototype, but it doesn't
need one as it should be declared static.
This patch fixes the warning:
config/aarch64/aarch64.c:6574:1: warning: no previous prototype for
‘aarch64_simd_make_constant’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
Which is hidden when building with
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:32:02PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com writes:
+ bool changed = false;
+ changed |= true;
+ changed |= true;
+ changed |= true;
+ changed |= true;
+if (changed)
Why do you use |= ...? Isn't it equivalent
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:04:04 -0800
Janis Johnson janis_john...@mentor.com wrote:
On 02/27/2013 09:29 AM, Julian Brown wrote:
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-3.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-3.c
Hi,
Ports should call final_start_function and final_end_function to get
proper debug info for the thunk as per
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55257#c3 . Fixes failing
tests in g++.dg for arm-*-*eabi.
Tested on arm-linux-gnueabi cross for armv7-a, arm/thumb2 and armv5t on
On 27/02/2013 21:52, Tom Tromey wrote:
I'm posting this now to get reactions to the probe before cleaning up
the corresponding gdb patches for submission. I've built it both with
and without sys/sdt.h, but I haven't yet run the test suite.
How did it build in the without sys/sdt.h case?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Sure. ASAN_FIXED_MAPPING should be used for performance measurements
only -- this is not a release option.
(Added a more precise comment).
BTW, today
Hi,
On 02/26/2013 12:33 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Ok for mainline?
I suppose you don't need an approval for the Solaris-specific files,
like such baselines.
Paolo.
Hi Paolo,
On 02/26/2013 12:33 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Ok for mainline?
I suppose you don't need an approval for the Solaris-specific files, like
such baselines.
probably not, but it's certainly good to have the changes sanity-checked
by someone with knowledge of the libstdc++ ABI, even if
Reserving a handful of new keywords for concepts and several new type
traits in preparation for future work on concepts.
Andrew
2013-02-05 Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sut...@gmail.com
* c-common.h (rid): New resreserved words for concepts.
* c-common.c (c_common_reswords):
Dave == Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com writes:
Dave How did it build in the without sys/sdt.h case?
Dave Without HAVE_SYS_SDT_H, there's no definition of PROBE2 at all,
Dave but you use it unconditionally in eh_{catch,throw}.cc. Am I
Dave missing something?
Ugh. I must have made some
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Andrew Sutton
andrew.n.sut...@gmail.com wrote:
Reserving a handful of new keywords for concepts and several new type
traits in preparation for future work on concepts.
Andrew
2013-02-05 Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sut...@gmail.com
* c-common.h (rid):
Of course. I'll send that along shortly.
Andrew
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Andrew Sutton
andrew.n.sut...@gmail.com wrote:
Reserving a handful of new keywords for concepts and several new type
traits
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Andrew Sutton
andrew.n.sut...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course. I'll send that along shortly.
Patch OK.
-- Gaby
Andrew
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Andrew Sutton
Dave How did it build in the without sys/sdt.h case?
Sorry about that again.
I must have made some change after testing it.
Here is an updated version.
One thing I found out while fixing this up is that changes to
unwind-cxx.h do not cause anything to rebuild if I just run make. I
have to
Attached is the initial documentation for the previous patch.
Andrew
2013-02-28 Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sut...@gmail.com
* doc/extend.texi (write_symbol): Initial concept docs.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Andrew Sutton
andrew.n.sut...@gmail.com wrote:
Attached is the initial documentation for the previous patch.
Patch OK. Thanks!
-- Gaby
Andrew
2013-02-28 Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sut...@gmail.com
* doc/extend.texi (write_symbol): Initial concept
On 02/25/2013 06:25 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 02/25/2013 06:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think my preference would be to avoid calling fixed_type_or_null at
all when we're in a template. I already changed
resolves_to_fixed_type_p that way, now we need to fix build_vtbl_ref_1.
Oops, now I
On 02/28/2013 02:06 AM, Julian Brown wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:04:04 -0800
Janis Johnson janis_john...@mentor.com wrote:
On 02/27/2013 09:29 AM, Julian Brown wrote:
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/slp-cond-3.c
===
---
OK
On 28 February 2013 09:34, James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
aarch64_init_simd_buitlins is not declared with a prototype, but it
doesn't need one as it should be declared static.
This patch fixes the warning:
config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c:314:1: warning: no
OK
On 28 February 2013 09:40, James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
aarch64_simd_make_constant has no prototype, but it doesn't
need one as it should be declared static.
This patch fixes the warning:
config/aarch64/aarch64.c:6574:1: warning: no previous prototype for
OK
On 28 February 2013 09:38, James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
In aarch64_float_const_representable, `sign' is unused.
This patch removes all references to it. The patch is equally
applicable to trunk and aarch64-4.7-branch.
This patch fixes the warning:
OK
On 28 February 2013 09:36, James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
aarch64_mangle_type has no prototype, but it doesn't need one as
it should be declared static.
This patch fixes the warning:
config/aarch64/aarch64.c:5974:1: warning: no previous prototype for
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
I think that the libgcc unwinder only calls malloc if somebody calls
__register_frame_info.
So I looked. Indeed it doesn't call malloc in our environment, but
does call dl_iterate_phdr, which is just as deadly.
To be
Tilman Sauerbeck [2013-02-24 17:00]:
Richard Earnshaw [2013-02-20 11:00]:
On 19/02/13 22:26, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
I don't get why relaxing the restrictions for the
andsi3_compare0_scratch pattern results in a mismatch for the
zeroextractsi_compare0_scratch one.
Any ideas?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhni...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
I think that the libgcc unwinder only calls malloc if somebody calls
__register_frame_info.
So I looked. Indeed it doesn't call malloc in
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
does call dl_iterate_phdr, which is just as deadly.
Hmmm, I guess I can't remember why.
Let me refresh your memory. You've seen this deadlock before:
Thread 1Thread 2
dlopen
The following testcase ICEd because we were trying to negate
-9223372036854775808, which results in UB, since it's LLONG_MAX + 1.
Then we got a SIGFPE on
-LLONG_MIN / -1
So fixed by doing the arithmetics on trees, and in case we got
an overflow, we bail out.
The hunk
probability = (double)
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov
ppluzhni...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
does call dl_iterate_phdr, which is just as deadly.
Hmmm, I guess I can't remember why.
Let me refresh your memory. You've seen this
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 07:27:48PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
The hunk
probability = (double) REG_BR_PROB_BASE * compare_count / loop_count;
in there should be probably handled in the same way. But I'll handle
that separately.
In the first hunk, I did s/int/HOST_WIDE_INT/, because HWI is
On 28 February 2013 13:28, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Paolo,
On 02/26/2013 12:33 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Ok for mainline?
I suppose you don't need an approval for the Solaris-specific files, like
such baselines.
probably not, but it's certainly good to have the changes sanity-checked
by someone
Jakub == Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
Jakub 2013-02-27 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
Jakub * files.c (_cpp_find_file): If returning early, before storing
Jakub something to *hash_slot and *hash_slot is NULL, call htab_clear_slot
Jakub on it. Access *hash_slot using void * type
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 04:30:13PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
I am sorry, I missed this message.
Indeed, the change looks safe,
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=176250view=rev
Thanks, here is what I've committed to gcc:
2013-02-28 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
*
Thread 1Thread 2
dlopen malloc
... takes loader lock ... takes malloc lock
malloc _Unwind_Backtrace
... needs malloc lock dl_iterate_phdr
held by T2... needs loader lock held by T1
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:57:48AM -0800, Cary Coutant wrote:
Similarly, couldn't dlopen drop the loader lock while calling malloc?
It can't, but perhaps it could call some alternative malloc instead
(the simpler malloc version in ld.so or similar).
Jakub
Hi!
This is small, but quite common memory leak in slp vectorization.
vec_alloc (vec_defs, number_of_vects);
on vl_ptr-ish vectree *vec_defs; first calls new on the vectree
(i.e. allocates sizeof (void *) bytes), and then actually creates vector
pointed to by that. Later on we copy the content
Hi!
On #include signal.h on Linux we leak memory in the preprocessor.
The problem is that signal.h doesn't have standard multiple inclusion
guards, the multiple inclusion guard is defined only conditionally
and the whole header isn't protected by that guard, just big part of it.
Furthermore,
Hi!
I'm not very happy about the renaming of the attribute, but it happened
in clang already, so here is a patch to do the same in gcc too.
The old name of the attribute is recognized too for compatibility e.g.
with code written for clang 3.[12] sanitizer, and during attribute parsing
changed
The problem with this testcase was that for a repeated , each call of
potential_constant_expression_1 led to two calls for the LHS, giving it
O(N^2) complexity. Fixed by avoiding the redundant call in
maybe_constant_value by calling cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr directly.
Tested
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi!
This is small, but quite common memory leak in slp vectorization.
vec_alloc (vec_defs, number_of_vects);
on vl_ptr-ish vectree *vec_defs; first calls new on the vectree
(i.e. allocates sizeof (void *) bytes), and then
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2013-02-28 Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
PR sanitizer/56454
* asan.c (gate_asan): Lookup
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Any insight about the relative performance of the two implementations?
We have a benchmark for the speed of unwinder. Here are results.
The number /1, /2, etc. is the number of levels in the stack trace.
Using
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm fine with not blocking a signal that the debugger needs, but I
have no idea
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:57:48AM -0800, Cary Coutant wrote:
Similarly, couldn't dlopen drop the loader lock while calling malloc?
It can't, but perhaps it could call some alternative malloc instead
(the simpler malloc
Hi,
for 4.9 I'd like to clean-up a bit grokdeclarator: today I noticed this
low hanging fruit which seems straightforward enough for 4.8.0 too
(unless it hints to a bug?!?)
Thanks,
Paolo.
//
2013-03-01 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
* decl.c
On 02/28/2013 07:31 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
for 4.9 I'd like to clean-up a bit grokdeclarator: today I noticed this
low hanging fruit which seems straightforward enough for 4.8.0 too
(unless it hints to a bug?!?)
OK, looks like the code that set that variable was removed in 2004, by
the
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Benjamin De Kosnik b...@redhat.com wrote:
Not seeing it.
Say for:
#include iostream
// A class for math constants.
templatetypename _RealType
struct __math_constants
{
// Constant @f$ \pi @f$.
static constexpr _RealType __pie =
Hi,
On ARM-Embedded-4_7 branch, check-in(r193980) causes a branch out of range
bug. Root cause is the incorrect instruction length set by that check-in.
Since the length of instruction should strictly reflect the pattern it
matches, this patch fixes it by correcting the length.
Patch applied to
51 matches
Mail list logo
