Thomas Schwinge tho...@codesourcery.com writes:
diff --git gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
index eeb8c7f..c07722b 100644
--- gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
+++ gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
@@ -151,12 +151,15 @@ GCC_CFLAGS = $(INTERNAL_CFLAGS)
Hello, gentle maintainer.
This is a message from the Translation Project robot.
A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted
by the Swedish team of translators. The file is available at:
http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/sv.po
(This file, 'gcc-4.9-b20140202.sv.po',
Hi!
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:32:33 +0100, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org
wrote:
Thomas Schwinge tho...@codesourcery.com writes:
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3C930D868B-5772-4F33-BB28-B878D40ED165%40adacore.com%3E
was the final version of the patch, after Olivier had
Thomas Schwinge tho...@codesourcery.com writes:
It is not obvious to me (and neither was to Olivier as well as the patch
reviewers, as it seems) where the gcc/ada/gcc-interface/ code is using
this variable. Is there a way for this to be made more explicit, so in
the future it won't get
Hello world,
the attached patch fixes PR 60522, a regresseion where temporary
variables were incorrectly introduced in a BLOCK within a WHERE
statement.
Regression-tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
OK for trunk and the other open branches?
Thomas
2014-04-16 Thomas Koenig
Hi!
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:30:06 +0100, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org
wrote:
Thomas Schwinge tho...@codesourcery.com writes:
It is not obvious to me (and neither was to Olivier as well as the patch
reviewers, as it seems) where the gcc/ada/gcc-interface/ code is using
this
Thomas Schwinge tho...@codesourcery.com writes:
Hi!
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:30:06 +0100, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org
wrote:
Thomas Schwinge tho...@codesourcery.com writes:
It is not obvious to me (and neither was to Olivier as well as the patch
reviewers, as it seems) where
Hi all,
This is a simple patch to update the AArch64 frame layout comment in
the source code.
frame_pointer should point above the local_variables section as we
define FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD = 1.
Is this Okay for stage-4?
Regards,
Renlin Li
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-03-16 Renlin Li
Hi!
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:09:59 +0100, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org
wrote:
Thomas Schwinge tho...@codesourcery.com writes:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:30:06 +0100, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org
wrote:
Thomas Schwinge tho...@codesourcery.com writes:
It is not obvious to
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-03-16 Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
* doc/invoke.texi (mapp-regs): Clarify.
---
gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 24bd76e..485867d 100644
Hi all,
Thank you for your suggestions, Richard. I have updated the patch
accordingly.
This is an optimization patch which will combine ubfiz and orr
insns with a single bfi when certain conditions meet.
tmp = (x m) | ( (y n) lsb) can be presented using
and tmp, x, m
bfi tmp,
Thomas Schwinge tho...@codesourcery.com writes:
No, you did not, but I had said: »not obvious [...] where the
gcc/ada/gcc-interface/ code is using [target_cpu_default]«.
Why do you think this directory is called gcc-interface???
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key
On 15 March 2014 14:46, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
I'm resending this because I forgot to dupe to gcc-patches and I'd like one
thread.
This should be pure commentary and documentation.
I hope I got all these. I grepped for DR and added
_GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS where it seemed needed.
I
PING for the build part; Joseph has already approved the driver part.
Tobias Burnus wrote:
When using Cilk Plus (-fcilkplus), it makes sense to automatically
link the run-time library (-lcilkrts).
This patch mimics libgomp by adding a .spec file; I am not 100% sure
whether the .spec file is
On 03/16/2014 08:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15 March 2014 14:46, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
I'm resending this because I forgot to dupe to gcc-patches and I'd like one
thread.
This should be pure commentary and documentation.
I hope I got all these. I grepped for DR and added
This patch fixes two issues, where gfortran claims that a function is
implicit pure, but it is not. That will cause a wrong-code optimization
in the middle end.
First problem, cf. PR60543, is that implicit pure was not set to 0 for
calls to impure intrinsic subroutines. (BTW: There are no
Ilmir Usmanov wrote:
Committed as r208541.
Thanks. Can you or Thomas apply the following patch after my patch* has
been committed to the trunk and the branch has been updated? Please
mention PR fortran/60283 in the ChangeLog.
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00782.html
Hi!
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:23:48 +0100, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Can you or Thomas apply the following patch after my patch* has
been committed to the trunk and the branch has been updated? Please
mention PR fortran/60283 in the ChangeLog.
*
PR c++/60390
* parser.c (cp_parser_member_declaration): Don't allow
finish_fully_implicit_template to consider friend declarations to be
class member templates.
(synthesize_implicit_template_parm): Handling winding back through class
scope to the
Le 16/03/2014 11:41, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
Hello world,
the attached patch fixes PR 60522, a regresseion where temporary
variables were incorrectly introduced in a BLOCK within a WHERE
statement.
Regression-tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
OK for trunk and the other open
Hi all.
The problem here was that when reading a value from STDIN and the user just
entered an empty entry (LF),
we would end up getting nested into a second read (via next_char) and the user
would have to press CTRL-D twice to get out of the read. (The correct behavior
is to only hit CTRL-D once
Michael Hudson-Doyle michael.hud...@linaro.org writes:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
michael.hud...@linaro.org wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
The bug report http://golang.org/issue/7074 shows that
Hi,
I am working on another patch and found this per-function variable isn't
correctly reset for Thumb1 target. Currently no ICE will be triggered
because we don't call function arm_split_constants for Thumb1 target. This
patch intends to define this variable in machine_function struct in arm.h.
Hi
The existing test case gcc.target/arm/unsigned-extend-1.c fails for Thumb1
target like cortex-m0 because the thumb1_addsi3_addgeu insn pattern isn't
friendly to gcc combine pass. Before combine pass, we have such insn for
this test case:
(insn 10 9 12 2 (set (reg:SI 118)
(plus:SI
24 matches
Mail list logo
