[v3 PATCH] Implement C++17 string searchers.

The first patch just transforms the TS version into an std one, the second patch makes it conform by implementing P0253R1. I haven't added any tests for the pair-seconds of the new api, and I noticed that we might want to go through our make_pairs and make_tuples and qualify them throughout the

Re: [PATCH] Add -Wshadow-local and -Wshadow-compatible-local.

Hi Manuel, On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 08:26:20PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 11/09/16 14:02, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > -Wshadow-local which warns if a local variable shadows another local > > variable or parameter, > > > > -Wshadow-compatible-local which warns if a local variable

Re: [PATCH, LRA] Fix PR rtl-optimization 77289, LRA matching constraint problem

On 9/11/16 3:35 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: FYI: I have a patch for the aarch64 regression here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39600 It passes bootstrap and reg-testing on x86_64-linux-gnu. Thanks for debugging and fixing this! Also the mentioned aarch64 and powerpc test

Re: [PATCH, LRA] Fix PR rtl-optimization 77289, LRA matching constraint problem

FYI: I have a patch for the aarch64 regression here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39600 It passes bootstrap and reg-testing on x86_64-linux-gnu. Also the mentioned aarch64 and powerpc test cases pass manually in a cross-compiler, but I cannot do the boot-strap on powerpc or

Re: [PATCH] Add -Wshadow-local and -Wshadow-compatible-local.

On 11/09/16 14:02, Mark Wielaard wrote: -Wshadow-local which warns if a local variable shadows another local variable or parameter, -Wshadow-compatible-local which warns if a local variable shadows another local variable or parameter whose type is compatible with that of the shadowing

Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/77507

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 08:04:40PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr77507.f90 -O (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: > /opt/gcc/gcc-20160910/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr77507.f90:3:6: Fatal Error: > Can't open module file 'ieee_arithmetic.mod' for reading at (1): No

Re: Verify package integrity of downloaded prerequisites (partially fixes 61439)

On Sep 11, 2016, at 8:35 AM, Moritz Klammler wrote: > > There is a long-standing > [bug report](https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61439) > pointing out that the `download_prerequisites` script doesn't verify the > integrity of the packages it downloads. I like the

Verify package integrity of downloaded prerequisites (partially fixes 61439)

There is a long-standing [bug report](https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61439) pointing out that the `download_prerequisites` script doesn't verify the integrity of the packages it downloads. The original bug report is only concerned about stability but for me, this is first and

Re: [PATCH] Remove extraneous whitespace in libbacktrace

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Michael McConville wrote: > This was committed to Rust's copy of libbacktrace in October by Carlos > Liam. Thanks. I committed this patch to the GCC repository, with this ChangeLog entry: 2016-09-11 Carlos Liam * all:

libgo patch committed: add runtime/internal/sys package

This patch to libgo adds the runtime/internal/sys package that is in the gc toolchain. In the gc toolchain this package is mostly a collection of generated files, one for each GOARCH value and one for each GOOS value. Rather than doing it in the gofrontend, we record the information in

[PATCH] Add -Wshadow-local and -Wshadow-compatible-local.

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 09:51:57AM -0400, Eric Gallager wrote: > On 9/10/16, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > I'm not sure about the patch to configure.ac/configure. The last I > > looked -Wshadow would warn if a local variable shadows a global > > variable. That can cause a

Re: [PATCH] Delete GCJ

On 10/09/16 12:59, NightStrike wrote: > Could we at least reach out and see if there's someone else who could > be the maintainer? I noticed gcj patches recently, so there's still > interest. 1. It's too late. We have been discussing this for a long time, and we're now doing what we decided.

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 11/09/16 11:55 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 11 September 2016 at 11:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Hmm, I'm not sure why it's not failing on all targets, but this should I don't know either: the same target (arm-none-eabi) but --with-cpu=cortex-a9 does build. fix it.

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 11 September 2016 at 11:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 11/09/16 09:08 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> On 10 September 2016 at 08:59, Christophe Lyon >> wrote: >>> >>> On 9 September 2016 at 23:20, Jason Merrill wrote:

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 11/09/16 10:38 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 11/09/16 09:08 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 10 September 2016 at 08:59, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 9 September 2016 at 23:20, Jason Merrill wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 11/09/16 09:08 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 10 September 2016 at 08:59, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 9 September 2016 at 23:20, Jason Merrill wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 08/09/16

Re: [PATCH, PR71602, 4/4] Make canonical_va_list_type more strict

On 10 September 2016 at 00:04, Jeff Law wrote: > On 08/29/2016 10:12 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: >> >> On 29/08/16 17:51, Joseph Myers wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Tom de Vries wrote: >>> This patch fixes PR71602 by making canonical_va_list_type more strict.

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 10 September 2016 at 08:59, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 9 September 2016 at 23:20, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On 08/09/16 09:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: Do we