Re: [PATCH] loongarch: use -mno-check-zero-division as the default for optimized code

On Sat, 2022-07-02 at 16:35 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote: > 在 2022/7/2 下午4:24, Xi Ruoyao 写道: > > > > I'll commit the patch with the hook removed after another regtest on > > loongarch64-linux-gnu.  I just rebuilt the entire system on my > > 3A5000, > > so I need some time to set it up.  Expectation

Re: [PATCH] analyzer: Use fixed-width types in allocation size tests

On Sun, 2022-07-03 at 01:20 +0200, Tim Lange wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for the mail! Embarrassingly, I did not account for the > different > sizes types may have on different systems. I've switched all > testcases > to the fixed-width types of stdint.h. > > Does this patch need an approval?

[PATCH] analyzer: Use fixed-width types in allocation size tests

Hi, thanks for the mail! Embarrassingly, I did not account for the different sizes types may have on different systems. I've switched all testcases to the fixed-width types of stdint.h. Does this patch need an approval? - Tim The patch changes the types inside the tests for the allocation

[r13-1405 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/allocation-size-4.c warning at line 31 (test for warnings, line 28) on Linux/x86_64

On Linux/x86_64, e6c3bb379f515b27268d08e62b4b3e5d7200b437 is the first bad commit commit e6c3bb379f515b27268d08e62b4b3e5d7200b437 Author: Tim Lange Date: Fri Jul 1 00:02:17 2022 +0200 analyzer: add allocation size checker [PR105900] caused FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/allocation-size-4.c note

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add myself to write after approval and DCO

Hi everyone, I've added myself to write after approval and DCO section. - Tim 2022-07-02 Tim Lange ChangeLog: * MAINTAINERS: Add myself. --- MAINTAINERS | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 3c448ba9eb6..17bebefa2db 100644 ---

Re: [PATCH take 2] middle-end: Support ABIs that pass FP values as wider integers.

On 6/26/2022 6:55 AM, Roger Sayle wrote: Hi Jeff, Sorry for the long delay getting back to this, but after deeper investigation, it turns out that your tingling spider senses that the original patch wasn't updating everywhere that was required were spot on. Although my nvptx testing showed

Re: [RFC] fortran: restore array indexing for all descriptor arrays [PR102043]

Le 02/07/2022 à 13:18, Thomas Koenig a écrit : > > One thought: If we have to bite the bullet and break the ABI, why not go > all the way and use the C descriptors in ISO_Fortran_binding.h as > gfortran's native format? > As far as I know, CFI descriptors are mutually exclusive with non-negative

Re: [RFC] fortran: restore array indexing for all descriptor arrays [PR102043]

Hi Mikael, Feel free to comment, do we need this? Thanks for taking this on. One thought: If we have to bite the bullet and break the ABI, why not go all the way and use the C descriptors in ISO_Fortran_binding.h as gfortran's native format? Best regards Thomas

Re: [PATCH] loongarch: use -mno-check-zero-division as the default for optimized code

在 2022/7/2 下午4:24, Xi Ruoyao 写道: On Sat, 2022-07-02 at 15:39 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote: diff --git a/gcc/common/config/loongarch/loongarch-common.cc b/gcc/common/config/loongarch/loongarch-common.cc index b6cbd84b873..f8b4660fabf 100644 --- a/gcc/common/config/loongarch/loongarch-common.cc +++

Re: [PATCH] loongarch: use -mno-check-zero-division as the default for optimized code

On Sat, 2022-07-02 at 15:39 +0800, Lulu Cheng wrote: > diff --git a/gcc/common/config/loongarch/loongarch-common.cc > b/gcc/common/config/loongarch/loongarch-common.cc > index b6cbd84b873..f8b4660fabf 100644 > --- a/gcc/common/config/loongarch/loongarch-common.cc > +++

Re: [PATCH] loongarch: use -mno-check-zero-division as the default for optimized code

在 2022/6/30 下午2:55, Richard Biener 写道: On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:00 AM Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote: Hi, We've made a consensus [1] that not to enable trapping for division by zero by default for LLVM, and we think GCC should behave similarly. The main rationales: 1. Division by zero