> Changes were checked into trunk:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-07/msg00179.html
Thanks, Kirill
>> There is a lot of things we can do about string operations, taking
>> incremental steps is good
>> plan.
Then my next step will be implementation of vector_loop for memset
with 0. Thanks fo
Hello,
> Yes, this patch is OK (I meant my previous mail as an approval).
> There is a lot of things we can do about string operations, taking
> incremental steps is good
> plan.
Changes were checked into trunk:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-07/msg00179.html
Thanks, K
On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 04:21:15PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 01:14:38PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I decided to grep for all the misspelled words beginning with A from
> > your list and fix the ones that were real errors. That took me an hour
> > to produce this pa
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
it turns out there wasn't much missing here. I got side-tracked because
fold_unary_loc doesn't call fold_indirect_ref_1, and fold_indirect_ref_1 has
a too strict comparison type == TREE_TYPE
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> it turns out there wasn't much missing here. I got side-tracked because
> fold_unary_loc doesn't call fold_indirect_ref_1, and fold_indirect_ref_1 has
> a too strict comparison type == TREE_TYPE (optype) (should compare
> TYPE_MAIN_V
On Sun, 2013-07-07 at 19:54 +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Ondrej Bilka schrieb:
>
> > http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~ondra/gcc_misspell.patch
>
Below are some other hunks that look suspicious...
(trying not to duplicate the things already mentioned by others)
- * 1) It means that finalizers, and al
Hello!
I didn't notice that TM2 target has the same ebx signature as Intel
target, so detect_caches_amd was also used for Intel processors.
Attached patch fixes this problem by removing Transmeta signature.
2013-07-07 Uros Bizjak
* config/i386/driver-i386.c (host_detect_local_cpu): Do
"Jürgen Urban" writes:
>> "Jürgen Urban" writes:
>> > I used the SPU code in GCC as example for creating an
>> > r5900_single_format structure. The patch is attached to the e-mail. I
>> > want to submit this patch.
>>
>> Thanks. Are there any real differences though? E.g. in your version
>> you
Ondrej Bilka schrieb:
http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~ondra/gcc_misspell.patch
This is wrong:
@@ -10834,7 +10834,7 @@ avr_convert_to_type (tree type, tree expr)
XOP[2] # Bytes to copy
Return TRUE if the expansion is accomplished.
- Return FALSE if the operand compination is not supported
On 7 July 2013 15:21, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
>
> discontiguousdiscontinuous
This one is incorrect - the libstdc++ header is talking about
contiguous memory, not continuous memory (arguably it should be
non-contiguous, but leaving it alone is better than changing it to
discontinuous.)
On 7 July 2013 15:21, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
>
> I worked how to make this more efficient. I created patch with obvious cases
> in hour. (only comments in c files though.)
>
> http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~ondra/gcc_misspell.patch
Some of the code fixed by that (boehm-gc, zlib, libsanitizer) is
maintained
Hello Richard,
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. Juli 2013 um 10:15 Uhr
> "Jürgen Urban" writes:
> > I used the SPU code in GCC as example for creating an
> > r5900_single_format structure. The patch is attached to the e-mail. I
> > want to submit this patch.
>
> Thanks. Are there any real differences th
Hi,
we got a couple of duplicates of this. The issue is that things like:
struct A {};
void foo() { decltype(A()); }
are turned by finish_decltype_type, called by
cp_parser_simple_declaration via cp_parser_decl_specifier_seq, into
something like:
struct A {};
void foo() { struct A; }
and l
Hello,
it turns out there wasn't much missing here. I got side-tracked because
fold_unary_loc doesn't call fold_indirect_ref_1, and fold_indirect_ref_1
has a too strict comparison type == TREE_TYPE (optype) (should compare
TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT instead?), but none of that was necessary so I'll lea
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 01:14:38PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I decided to grep for all the misspelled words beginning with A from
> your list and fix the ones that were real errors. That took me an hour
> to produce this patch. It doesn't include changes to java or fortran,
> as I don't have
Hello,
this patch gets us one line closer to implementing the proper C++11
semantics for ?: (there are still quite a few missing).
Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
2013-07-07 Marc Glisse
PR c++/53000
gcc/cp/
* call.c (build_conditional_expr_1): Preserve xva
Hello,
this patch lets us write (vec<0)?-1:1 without having to manually construct
a vector of 1s. It seems preferable to the hacks we can currently use,
like (vec!=vec)+1. The patch also fixes a few bugs along the way.
Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
2013-07-07 Marc Glisse
"Jürgen Urban" writes:
> I used the SPU code in GCC as example for creating an
> r5900_single_format structure. The patch is attached to the e-mail. I
> want to submit this patch.
Thanks. Are there any real differences though? E.g. in your version
you set has_sign_dependent_rounding, but that's
18 matches
Mail list logo
