[PATCH] Rope iterators: don't retain pointers when copied

Rope iterators sometimes contain pointers to an internal buffer inside the iterator itself. When such an iterator is copied, the copy incorrectly retains pointers to the original. This patch takes the simple approach of not copying the cached information when the internal buffer is being used,

[PATCH] Add a comma to comment in lower_eh_constructs_2

Hi I think the comment in lower_eh_constructs_2 need a comma. And I don't have write permission to GCC. Bootstraped on x86-64 Thanks, Zhouyi Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou gcc/ChangeLog: 2018-05-21 Zhouyi Zhou * tree-eh.c

Re: [PATCH] PR libstdc++/85843 fix "should be explicitly initialized" warnings

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > PR libstdc++/85843 > * src/c++11/cow-stdexcept.cc (logic_error, runtime_error): Explicitly > initialize base class to avoid warnings. And this patch fixes the warning to treat defaulted

Important, please!

Hello, Did you receive my previous email? Pls inform. Best regards, T. K Acharya

[PATCH] PR libstdc++/85843 fix "should be explicitly initialized" warnings

PR libstdc++/85843 * src/c++11/cow-stdexcept.cc (logic_error, runtime_error): Explicitly initialize base class to avoid warnings. Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk. commit e64c045676caee3153d62bdaaf207bb331f10d3d Author: Jonathan Wakely

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 85841: [F2018] reject deleted features

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 09:44:47PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: > > >> The patch still regtests cleanly. Ok for trunk? > > > > Patch looks good to me. The only thing that worries me is > > whether the patch will cause the SPEC benchmark to throw > > an error or warning that it did not before. As I

Re: [wwwdocs] Buildstat update for 5.5

On Sat, 19 May 2018, Tom G. Christensen wrote: > Here's an update covering gcc 5.5.0. Thanks, applied. Gerald

Re: Fix Bug 83566 - cyl_bessel_j returns wrong result for x>1000 for high orders

Hi. This patch intends to fix Bug 83566 - cyl_bessel_j returns wrong result for x>1000 for high orders. See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83566 for issue description.     * libstdc++-v3/include/tr1/bessel_function.tcc   Series expansion in __cyl_bessel_jn_asymp() shall not

Re: [wwwdocs] Buildstat update for 5.x

On Sat, 19 May 2018, Tom G. Christensen wrote: > Going through the archives I found two results missing from the > buildstat page. Thanks, Tom! I applied this. Gerald

[wwwdocs PATCH] for Re: Policy for reverting someone else commit?

On Sun, 20 May 2018, Richard Biener wrote: > IIRC there is a 24h rule that global maintainers can invoke. Not > sure if that is formally documented somewhere. Yes, we have a reversion policy; it is documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html And, after me just having applied the patch

[og7] Re: Forwarding -foffload=[...] from the driver (compile-time) to libgomp (run-time)

Hi! (This whole idea/patch still needs an overall re-work, as discussed, but here is a small incremental improvement/bug fix.) On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:52:58 +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > [...] here is my current messy WIP

[PATCHv2] PR 85822 - Fix handling of negative constants

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2018, Yuri Gribov wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> This fixes PR 85822 by removing incorrect reversal of condition in VRP >> assertion. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64. >> >> Ok for trunk? > > Please

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 85841: [F2018] reject deleted features

Hi Steve, thanks for your comments! >> The patch still regtests cleanly. Ok for trunk? > > Patch looks good to me. The only thing that worries me is > whether the patch will cause the SPEC benchmark to throw > an error or warning that it did not before. As I don't have > SPEC benchmark and it

Re: [PATCH GCC 8] x86: Re-enable partial_reg_dependency and movx for Haswell

> r254152 disabled partial_reg_dependency and movx for Haswell and newer > Intel processors. r258972 restored them for skylake-avx512. For Haswell, > movx improves performance. But partial_reg_stall may be better than > partial_reg_dependency in theory. We will investigate performance impact >

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 85841: [F2018] reject deleted features

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 07:28:49PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote: > > > the attached patch deals with the fact that the Fortran 2018 standard > > marks two features as "deleted" (i.e. no longer supported), namely > > arithmetic IFs and nonblock DO constructs. Both have been obsolescent > > since the

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 85841: [F2018] reject deleted features

Hi all, > the attached patch deals with the fact that the Fortran 2018 standard > marks two features as "deleted" (i.e. no longer supported), namely > arithmetic IFs and nonblock DO constructs. Both have been obsolescent > since the 90s (and have been warned about by gfortran with appropriate >

Re: [Patch] Request for comments: short int builtins

On May 20, 2018 7:02:40 PM GMT+02:00, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: >On Sonntag, 20. Mai 2018 15:07:59 CEST Richard Biener wrote: >> On May 20, 2018 11:01:54 AM GMT+02:00, Allan Sandfeld Jensen > wrote: >> >A little over a year back we had a regression in

Re: [Patch] Request for comments: short int builtins

On Sonntag, 20. Mai 2018 15:07:59 CEST Richard Biener wrote: > On May 20, 2018 11:01:54 AM GMT+02:00, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > >A little over a year back we had a regression in a point release of gcc > > > >because the builtin __builtin_clzs got removed from i386, in

[PATCH GCC 8] x86: Re-enable partial_reg_dependency and movx for Haswell

r254152 disabled partial_reg_dependency and movx for Haswell and newer Intel processors. r258972 restored them for skylake-avx512. For Haswell, movx improves performance. But partial_reg_stall may be better than partial_reg_dependency in theory. We will investigate performance impact of

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 84588 ("[8 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (contains_struct_check())")​ (Take 2)

Hi, On 19/05/2018 15:30, Jason Merrill wrote: I would expect it to cause different diagnostic issues, from complaining about something not being a proper declaration when it's really an expression. I also wonder about warning problems (either missed or bogus) due to trying these in a different

Re: [PATCH] Improve memset handling in value-numbering

On May 20, 2018 2:54:46 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" wrote: >On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Richard Biener >wrote: >> >> Noticed in PR63185. >> >> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. >> >> Richard. >> >> 2018-05-17 Richard Biener

Re: [Patch] Request for comments: short int builtins

On May 20, 2018 11:01:54 AM GMT+02:00, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: >A little over a year back we had a regression in a point release of gcc > >because the builtin __builtin_clzs got removed from i386, in part >because it >is was wrongly named for a target specific builtin,

Re: O3 bootstraps fail on x86-64

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 1:54 AM, graham stott via gcc-patches wrote: > It's --disable-libsanitizer that works not --disable-asan I got that wrong > > Original message > From: graham stott via gcc-patches > Date: 19/05/2018

Re: [PATCH] Improve memset handling in value-numbering

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > Noticed in PR63185. > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied. > > Richard. > > 2018-05-17 Richard Biener > > * tree-ssa-sccvn.c (vn_reference_lookup_3): Improve

[Patch, Fortran] PR 85841: [F2018] reject deleted features

Hi all, the attached patch deals with the fact that the Fortran 2018 standard marks two features as "deleted" (i.e. no longer supported), namely arithmetic IFs and nonblock DO constructs. Both have been obsolescent since the 90s (and have been warned about by gfortran with appropriate flags).

Re: [PATCH] PR 85822 - Fix handling of negative constants

On May 20, 2018 2:01:24 PM GMT+02:00, Alexander Monakov wrote: >On Sun, 20 May 2018, Yuri Gribov wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> This fixes PR 85822 by removing incorrect reversal of condition in >VRP >> assertion. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64. >> >> Ok for trunk? >

Re: [PATCH] PR 85822 - Fix handling of negative constants

On Sun, 20 May 2018, Yuri Gribov wrote: > Hi all, > > This fixes PR 85822 by removing incorrect reversal of condition in VRP > assertion. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64. > > Ok for trunk? Please address the following issues: Use correct PR reference in Changelog. Double-check the

[PATCH] PR 85822 - Fix handling of negative constants

Hi all, This fixes PR 85822 by removing incorrect reversal of condition in VRP assertion. Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64. Ok for trunk? -Y pr85822-1.patch Description: Binary data

[Patch] Request for comments: short int builtins

A little over a year back we had a regression in a point release of gcc because the builtin __builtin_clzs got removed from i386, in part because it is was wrongly named for a target specific builtin, but we were using it in Qt since it existed in multiple compilers. I got the patch removing it

Re: O3 bootstraps fail on x86-64

It's --disable-libsanitizer that works not --disable-asan I got that wrong Original message From: graham stott via gcc-patches Date: 19/05/2018 10:30 (GMT+00:00) To: gcc-patches Subject: O3 bootstraps fail on x86-64 O3