Re: [PATCH][AARCH64]Replace gen_rtx_PLUS with plus_constant

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 03:40:59PM +0100, Renlin Li wrote: Thank you, can you please commit it for me? Kind regards, Renlin Li On 09/20/13 15:26, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: On 20 September 2013 15:18, Renlin Li renli...@arm.com wrote: 2013-09-20 Renlin Li renlin...@arm.com *

Re: [gomp4] C++ OpenMP user defined reductions (take 2)

On 09/20/2013 12:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: In templates the UDRs are always FUNCTION_DECLs in classes or at function block scope, the above one liner was I believe for the latter, where without it duplicate_decls was returning incorrectly 0; the UDRs from mismatching templates would actually

Re: [c++-concepts] Constrained friends

On 09/13/2013 12:21 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote: Previously, if constraints were not satisfied, we would not record the template as a candidate. However, this causes errors in class template instantiation if there are constrained friend declarations whose constraints are not satisfied (no matching

Re: [c++-concepts] Constrained friends

I'm going to rewrite this patch tomorrow morning. The semantics aren't quite right --- they should be simpler. Previously, if constraints were not satisfied, we would not record the template as a candidate. However, this causes errors in class template instantiation if there are constrained

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 58099: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking

Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? This looks good to me but I let Tobias have the final word as he expressed some concerns in the PR audit trail. Sorry for the very belated replay. I played with the patch and it looks okay. thanks. Committed as r202766. Btw, since

[Patch, Fortran] PR 58355: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] ICE with TYPE, EXTENDS before parent TYPE defined

Hi all, the straightforward patch in the attachment does two things: 1) It prevents a segfault, which is a regression on 4.7/4.8/trunk (by simply switching the order of two statements). 2) It modifies an error message, which was not perfectly correct in my opinion. The patch was regtested

Revisit Core tunning flags

Hi, this is upated version of patch discussed at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00841.html It makes CORE tuning to more follow the optimization guidelines. In particular it removes some tuning flags for features I implemented years back specifically for K7/K8 chips that ended up in

Re: Revisit Core tunning flags

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote: Hi, this is upated version of patch discussed at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00841.html It makes CORE tuning to more follow the optimization guidelines. In particular it removes some tuning flags for

Re: [c++-concepts] Constrained friends

On 09/21/2013 08:52 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: It is wrong, but not for the reasons I gave. This only happens when you try to constrain a friend function that declares a specialization, which happens to be completely separate from the previously declared template. I'm going to disallow the

Re: Revisit Core tunning flags

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote: Hi, this is upated version of patch discussed at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00841.html It makes CORE tuning to more follow the

Re: [patch] Make vector::at() assertion message more useful (try #2)

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote: In the meanwhile, since you are also touching debug-mode and profile-mode, make sure to run check-debug and check-profile too. Thanks for mentioning that. Several more tests needed line number adjustments. There