Hi,
this patch extends earlier Martin's patch. I completely removed
parse_tree_args because it assumed that every function has only one set
of parm types and one return value type. We really want to compare two
sets of parameter types (DECL_ARGUMENTS and TYPE_PARM_TYPES) as they do not
need to 100
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 08:47:10PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > * g++.dg/torture/pr65419.C: New.
> >
> > Maybe you should ask Richi or Jakub about the testcase because you are
> > placing it in a non-target-specific location. It should succeed on
> > all targets, but it may expose la
On 16.06.2015 9:09, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> According to [1], patches that convert to std::swap are considered as
> obvious and don't need approval. If there is a non-trivial part,
> please split it to a separate patch for an eventual discussion.
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg
On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 20:36 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914 demonstrates that we
> > fail to match vector predicates with pseudos that are in the virtual
> > stack register rang
On 06/21/15 19:00, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 06/20/15 02:09, Andreas Schwab wrote:
This also fails on powerpc.
what is the build compiler? James provided a clue that 4.9.2 is ok but 4.8.1
is bad.
FWIW, I can't reproduce the failure with using a stock 4.8.2 build compiler for
an x86_64-lin
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 04:04:19PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02055.html
> * rtlanal.c (commutative_operand_precedence): Correct comments.
> * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_plus_minus_op_data_cmp): Delete forward
> declaration. Return an in
Attached is a patch to reject C and C++ constructs that result
in obtaining a pointer (or a reference in C++) to a builtin
function. These constructs are currently silently accepted by
GCC and, in most cases(*), result in a linker error. The patch
brings GCC on par with Clang by rejecting all su
On 06/20/15 02:09, Andreas Schwab wrote:
This also fails on powerpc.
what is the build compiler? James provided a clue that 4.9.2 is ok but 4.8.1
is bad.
nathan
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-5.1.0.sv.po', has just
*ping*
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg00966.html
> Hello world,
>
> the attached patch emits a warning for constant integer division.
> While correct according to the standard, I cannot really think
> of a legitimate reason why people would want to write 3/5 where
> they could ha
On Sat, 2015-06-20 at 13:37 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 5:36 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > Maybe you should ask Richi or Jakub about the testcase because you are
> > placing it in a non-target-specific location. It should succeed on
> > all targets, but it may expose latent bug
Le 16/05/2015 18:43, Mikael Morin a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> this is about PR61831 where in code like:
>
> type :: string_t
> character(LEN=1), dimension(:), allocatable :: chars
> end type string_t
> type(string_t) :: prt_in
> (...)
> tmp = new_prt_spec (
12 matches
Mail list logo
