Hi!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-May/651199.html
patch.
Thanks.
On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 08:12:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The C++26 P2662R3 Pack indexing paper mentions that both GCC
> and MSVC don't handle T...[10] parameter declaration when T
>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 4:02 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:56 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > > This is never okay. You cannot commit a patch without approval, *ever*.
>
> This is the biggest
> Am 11.04.2024 um 16:03 schrieb Segher Boessenkool
> :
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:56 PM Segher Boessenkool
>>> wrote:
>>> This is never okay. You cannot commit a patch without approval, *ever*.
>
> This is the biggest
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 08:32:39PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:56 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > This is never okay. You cannot commit a patch without approval, *ever*.
This is the biggest issue, to start with. It is fundamental.
> > That patch is also obvious --
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:56 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 08:31:38AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > If there are no further comments, I plan to commit the referred patch
> > > to the mainline on Wednesday. The latest
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:56 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 08:31:38AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > If there are no further comments, I plan to commit the referred patch
> > to the mainline on Wednesday. The latest version can be considered an
> > obvious patch that
On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 08:31:38AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> If there are no further comments, I plan to commit the referred patch
> to the mainline on Wednesday. The latest version can be considered an
> obvious patch that solves certain oversight in the original
> implementation.
This is
Hi!
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 11:48:20AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I'd like to ping the following patches:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html
> PR111284 P2
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648215.html
> PR114409 (part of a P1)
>
>
> Am 01.04.2024 um 21:28 schrieb Uros Bizjak :
>
> Hello!
>
> I'd like to ping the
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647634.html
> PR112560 P1 patch.
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard
> Thanks,
> Uros.
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:28 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> I'd like to ping the
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647634.html
> PR112560 P1 patch.
If there are no further comments, I plan to commit the referred patch
to the mainline on Wednesday. The latest version can be
Hi!
I'd like to ping the following patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html
PR111284 P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648215.html
PR114409 (part of a P1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/648381.html
PR114426 P1
Hello!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647634.html
PR112560 P1 patch.
Thanks,
Uros.
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-March/647445.html
PR111284 P2 patch.
Thanks.
Jakub
> > + if (POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t1)))
> > +{
> > + if (SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t1))
> > + {
> > + if (!SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t2)
> > + || SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t1)->align != SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t2)->align
> > + || SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (t1)->misalign != SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO
> >
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > We have wrong code with LTO, too.
> >
> > I know.
> >
> > > The problem is that IPA passes (and
> > > not only that, loop analysis too) does analysis at compile time (with
> > > value numbers in) and streams the info separately.
> >
> > And that is
> > Otherwise
> > I will add your testcase for this patch and commit this one.
> > Statistically we almost never merge functions with different value
> > ranges (three in testsuite, 0 during bootstrap, 1 during LTO bootstrap
> > and probably few in LLVM build - there are 15 cases reported, but
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 05:16:59PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Sorry, this was bit of a misunderstanding: I tought you still considered
> the original patch to be full fix, while I tought I should look into it
> more and dig out more issues. This is bit of can of worms. Overall I
> think the
> > We have wrong code with LTO, too.
>
> I know.
>
> > The problem is that IPA passes (and
> > not only that, loop analysis too) does analysis at compile time (with
> > value numbers in) and streams the info separately.
>
> And that is desirable, because otherwise it simply couldn't derive any
> > int test (int a)
> > {
> > return a>0 ? CST1: CST2;
> > }
> >
> > gets same hash value no matter what CST1/CST2 is. I added hasher and I
> > am re-running stats.
>
> The hash should be commutative here at least.
It needs to match what comparator is doing later, and sadly it does not
try
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:18:45PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:55:07AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > > So the ipa_jump_func are I think the only thing that actually can
> > > > > differ
> > > > > on the ICF merging candidates from value range POV.
> > > >
> > > >
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:55:07AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > So the ipa_jump_func are I think the only thing that actually can differ
> > > > on the ICF merging candidates from value range POV.
> > >
> > > I agree. Btw, I would have approved the original patch in this
> > > thread that
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:55:07AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > So the ipa_jump_func are I think the only thing that actually can differ
> > > on the ICF merging candidates from value range POV.
> >
> > I agree. Btw, I would have approved the original patch in this
> > thread that wipes
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 05:21:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:46:42AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > > I am sorry for delaying this. I made the variant that
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 05:21:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:46:42AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > I am sorry for delaying this. I made the variant that simply compares
> > > > value range of functions and
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 05:21:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:46:42AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > I am sorry for delaying this. I made the variant that simply compares
> > > value range of functions and prevents
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 05:21:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:46:42AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > I am sorry for delaying this. I made the variant that simply compares
> > value range of functions and prevents merging if they diverge and wanted
> > to make some
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:46:42AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> I am sorry for delaying this. I made the variant that simply compares
> value range of functions and prevents merging if they diverge and wanted
> to make some bigger statistics. This made me notice some performance
> problems on
> Hi!
Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:29:24AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > 2024-02-15 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > PR middle-end/113907
> > * ipa-icf.cc (sem_item_optimizer::merge_classes): Reset
> > SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO and SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO on successfully ICF merged
> >
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:29:24AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2024-02-15 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR middle-end/113907
> * ipa-icf.cc (sem_item_optimizer::merge_classes): Reset
> SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO and SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO on successfully ICF merged
> functions.
>
>
Hi!
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/thread.html#645781
[PATCH] c++: Fix up parameter pack diagnostics on xobj vs. varargs functions
[PR113802]
The thread contains two possible further versions of the patch.
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping 2 patches:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/644580.html
>
>
> PR113617 P1 - Handle private COMDAT function symbol reference
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:33 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping 2 patches:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/645326.html
> i386: Enable _BitInt support on ia32
>
> all the FAILs mentioned in that mail have been fixed by now.
LGTM, based on HJ's advice.
Hi!
I'd like to ping 2 patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/644580.html
PR113617 P1 - Handle private COMDAT function symbol reference in readonly data
On 2/9/24 02:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/644701.html
Introduce HOST_SIZE_T_PRINT_UNSIGNED etc. macros to fix LLP64 host build issue
Both have been successfully bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and
i686-linux, the latter has been
Hi!
I'd like to ping 2 patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/644580.html
PR113617 P1 - Handle private COMDAT function symbol reference in readonly data
section
More details in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/thread.html#644121
and
Hello!
I have sent an explanation on ICE in try_combine on pr112494.c [1],and
an argument that explains why we can safely ignore non-COMPARISON_P
mode changes [2].
Can we proceed with the proposed solution?
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638726.html
[2]
Hi!
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:21:43AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The following patch makes most of x86 MD builtins nothrow,leaf
> (like most middle-end builtins are). For -fnon-call-exceptions it
> doesn't nothrow, better might be to still add it if the builtins
> don't read or write memory
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch.
Thanks
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 11:17:48AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The middle-end has been changed quite recently to canonicalize
> -abs (x) to copysign (x, -1) rather than the other way around.
> While I agree with that at GIMPLE level, since it matches
Hi!
I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches.
- c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2169R4 - Placeholder variables with no name
[PR110349]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630802.html
- c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2741R3 - user-generated static_assert messages
[PR110348]
Hi!
I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches.
- c++, v2: Implement C++26 P2169R4 - Placeholder variables with no name
[PR110349]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/630802.html
- c++: Implement C++26 P2361R6 - Unevaluated strings [PR110342]
On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 09:20 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 09:02:55AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-
> patches wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-
> > patches wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Benjamin
Hi!
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 09:02:55AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 07:27:57PM +0200, Benjamin Priour via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > Thanks for the report,
> > >
> > >
Hi!
I'd like to ping a couple of C++ patches. All of them together
with the 2 updated patches posted yesterday have been
bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux again yesterday.
- c++: Implement C++26 P2361R6 - Unevaluated strings [PR110342]
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping this patch.
> The C++ FE part has been approved by Jason already with a minor change
> I've made in my copy.
> Are the remaining parts ok for trunk?
In the C front-end changes, since you end up discarding any
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch.
The C++ FE part has been approved by Jason already with a minor change
I've made in my copy.
Are the remaining parts ok for trunk?
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:48:19AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> 2023-08-11 Jakub Jelinek
>
> gcc/
> *
Hi!
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 05:24:02PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek (12):
> expr: Small optimization [PR102989]
> lto-streamer-in: Adjust assert [PR102989]
> phiopt: Fix phiopt ICE on vops [PR102989]
> Middle-end _BitInt support [PR102989]
> _BitInt
Hi!
Now that Richi has acked all the middle-end _BitInt patches (but am
deferring committing those until also the C FE and libgcc patches are
approved), I'd like to ping this patch.
Thanks!
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 08:19:41PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The following patch
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 8:25 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 08:14:14PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Jakub Jelinek (12):
> > expr: Small optimization [PR102989]
> > lto-streamer-in: Adjust assert [PR102989]
> > phiopt: Fix
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Joseph, could I ask now at least for an overall design review of the
> C patches (8-10,13) whether its interfaces with middle-end are ok,
> so that Richi can review the middle-end parts?
I am fine with the interface to the middle-end
Hi!
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 08:14:14PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek (12):
> expr: Small optimization [PR102989]
> lto-streamer-in: Adjust assert [PR102989]
> phiopt: Fix phiopt ICE on vops [PR102989]
> Middle-end _BitInt support [PR102989]
> _BitInt
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 9:06 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:42:07PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > The following patch introduces {add,sub}c5_optab and pattern recognizes
> > various forms of add with carry and subtract with carry/borrow, see
> >
Hi!
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:42:07PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> The following patch introduces {add,sub}c5_optab and pattern recognizes
> various forms of add with carry and subtract with carry/borrow, see
> pr79173-{1,2,3,4,5,6}.c tests on what is matched.
> Primarily forms
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:09:19AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > PR 108959 shows one more example where undefined code with type
> > incompatible accesses to stuff passed in parameters can cause an ICE
> > because we try to create a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR of mismatching sizes:
> >
> >
Hi!
Honza, could you please have a look?
This is one of the few remaining P1s.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:09:19AM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PR 108959 shows one more example where undefined code with type
> incompatible accesses to stuff passed in parameters can cause an ICE
>
Hi!
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 10:59:36PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> 2023-03-24 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR target/109254
> * builtins.cc (apply_args_size): If targetm.calls.get_raw_arg_mode
> returns VOIDmode, handle it like if the register isn't used for
>
On 3/1/23 05:32, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:06:17AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Thoughts on this? I guess my preference would be the BF -> SF -> TI
path
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 7:11 PM Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:32:43PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:32:43PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:06:17AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via
>> > Gcc-patches wrote:
>> > > Thoughts on
On 3/10/23 09:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch (as I wrote a week ago, NightStrike has tested
it):
Thanks, pushed to master branch.
On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 09:05 +, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'd like to ping these patches. All 3 variants have been
> > bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, the last
> > one is my preference I guess. The current
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch (as I wrote a week ago, NightStrike has tested
it):
On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:44:47PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > 2023-02-22 Jakub Jelinek
> > >
> > > PR target/107998
> > > * config.gcc (x86_64-*-cygwin*): Don't add
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping this patch, which has been successfully
> bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611180.html
> - PR108634 - P3 - tree: Use comdat
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping these patches. All 3 variants have been
> bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, the last
> one is my preference I guess. The current state breaks e.g. ccache.
>
>
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch, which has been successfully
bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611180.html
- PR108634 - P3 - tree: Use comdat tree_code_{type,length} even for C++11/14
Thanks
Jakub
On Thu,
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/607145.html
- PR107558 - P2 - c++: Don't clear TREE_READONLY for -fmerge-all-constants
for non-aggregates
Thanks
Jakub
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:13:55AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
Hi!
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:32:43PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:06:17AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > Thoughts on this? I guess my
Hi!
I'd like to ping these patches. All 3 variants have been
bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, the last
one is my preference I guess. The current state breaks e.g. ccache.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-January/610285.html
- PR108464 - P1 -
On Wed, 1 Mar 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping a few pending patches:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/607534.html
> - PR107846 - P1 - c-family: Account for integral promotions of left shifts
> for -Wshift-overflow warning
OK.
Hi!
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:06:17AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Thoughts on this? I guess my preference would be the BF -> SF -> TI
> > path because we won't need to waste
> > 32:
Hi!
I'd like to ping a few pending patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/607534.html
- PR107846 - P1 - c-family: Account for integral promotions of left shifts
for -Wshift-overflow warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-January/610285.html
-
* The 'loop' patch fixes a long-standing bug exposed by a GCC 13 commit,
making it a "13 Regression" fix
* The next two are simple bug fixes, relatively obvious and have very
limited-scope code changes - fixing wrong-code issues.
* The next two are a bit longer but also rather contained.
*
I'd like to ping a few pending patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/607534.html
- PR107846 - P1 - c-family: Account for integral promotions of left shifts
for -Wshift-overflow warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-January/610285.html
- PR108464 -
Updated ping email as some patches have been reviewed. [Thanks! I still
need to revised three of them: for Fortran, the parallel + loop issue
and the non-rect-loop issue - and for C/C++, the allocate's align patch.]
I think it would be very good to get (some of) Julian's mapping patches
in as it
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/605965.html
> - ABI - aarch64: Add bfloat16_t support for aarch64 (enabling it in GCC 14
> will be harder)
Sorry for the delay on this. There's still an ongoing debate about
whether to keep the current AArch64
I'd like to ping a few pending patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/607534.html
- PR107846 - P1 - c-family: Account for integral promotions of left shifts
for -Wshift-overflow warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-January/610285.html
- PR108464 -
"[13 Regression]" OpenMP Fortran patches:
[Patch] OpenMP/Fortran: Fix loop-iter var privatization with !$OMP LOOP
[PR108512]
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-January/610531.html
[Patch][v2] OpenMP/Fortran: Partially fix non-rect loop nests [PR107424]
Hi all, hello Jakub,
Below is the updated list to last ping,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/607178.html
NOTE to the list below: I have stopped checking older patches. I know
some more are pending review, others need to be revised. I will re-check,
once the below listed
Hi!
I'd like to ping a few pending patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606973.html
- PR107465 - c-family: Fix up -Wsign-compare BIT_NOT_EXPR handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/607104.html
- PR107465 - c-family: Incremental fix for
On 12/2/22 10:45, Jason Merrill wrote:
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
-- 8< --
If the DECL_VALUE_EXPR of a VAR_DECL has EXPR_LOCATION set, then any use of
that variable looks like it has that location, which leads to the debugger
jumping back and forth for both lambdas and
On 12/6/22 08:26, Jason Merrill wrote:
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
Ping.
-- 8< --
The PR (which isn't resolved by this commit) pointed out to me that GCC
should build with -Wconditionally-supported to support bootstrapping with a
C++11 compiler that makes different choices.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/607195.html
The patch referenced in the original post is now approved and committed.
-Sandra
Hi!
I'd like to ping a few pending patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606973.html
- PR107465 - c-family: Fix up -Wsign-compare BIT_NOT_EXPR handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/607104.html
- PR107465 - c-family: Incremental fix for
On 11/25/22 17:18, Martin Liška wrote:
On 11/21/22 11:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Otherwise LGTM. Thanks and sorry for the review delay.
Yuri, do you want to commit the patch soon?
If not, I can help if you want?
Hey.
I've just installed the patch with function signature change
and
On 11/21/22 11:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Otherwise LGTM. Thanks and sorry for the review delay.
Yuri, do you want to commit the patch soon?
If not, I can help if you want?
Cheers,
Martin
Updated list as follow up to last ping at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-September/601162.html
Recent patches:
Sandra's (Tue Nov 15 04:46:15 GMT 2022)
[PATCH v4] OpenMP: Generate SIMD clones for functions with "declare target"
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:57:15PM +0300, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> From 4729f2db3f1b6b40ef0124e4a645788d7f66f426 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Yuri Gribov
> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 08:42:44 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH] asan: fix unsafe optimization of Asan checks.
>
> gcc/
> PR
Hi,
This patch fixes incorrect Asan optimization in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558 . It successfully
passes bootstrap-asan, regular bootstrap and regression testing (on
x86/amd64).
With this patch number of optimizations has reduced only slightly
(146062 -> 145824 on
Hi!
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:28:34AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/21/22 09:42, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On top of the pending
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603665.html
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/604080.html
> > the following patch
I'm seeing the following build failure for arc-linux-gnu after this
commit. (Note that this is for building GCC *after* glibc, not for an
initial inhibit_libc bootstrap build of GCC.)
In file included from
/scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/src/gcc/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:413:
./md-unwind-support.h: In
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:34 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to ping this patch.
The patch is OK.
Richard.
> Thanks.
>
> > 2022-09-19 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > * unwind-dw2.h (REG_UNSAVED, REG_SAVED_OFFSET, REG_SAVED_REG,
> > REG_SAVED_EXP,
Hi!
I'd like to ping this patch.
Thanks.
> 2022-09-19 Jakub Jelinek
>
> * unwind-dw2.h (REG_UNSAVED, REG_SAVED_OFFSET, REG_SAVED_REG,
> REG_SAVED_EXP, REG_SAVED_VAL_OFFSET, REG_SAVED_VAL_EXP,
> REG_UNDEFINED): New anonymous enum, moved from inside of
> struct
On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 10:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:38:58AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 01:27:51PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:33:29AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:38:58AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 01:27:51PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:33:29AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > The following patch is partially a
On Fri, 9 Sept 2022 at 20:01, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
>
> s/__weak/__is_weak/g perhaps?
Yes, that'll do. Fixed by the attached, with a test to avoid it happening again.
Tested x86_64-linux, pushed to trunk.
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 11:46 AM Iain Sandoe via Libstdc++
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >
s/__weak/__is_weak/g perhaps?
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 11:46 AM Iain Sandoe via Libstdc++ <
libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On 9 Sep 2022, at 19:36, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
> >
>
> >> Here's a complete patch that combines the various incremental patches
> >> that have been going around. I'm
> On 9 Sep 2022, at 19:36, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
>> Here's a complete patch that combines the various incremental patches
>> that have been going around. I'm testing this now.
>>
>> Please take a look.
>
> unfortunately, this patch broke macOS bootstrap (seen on
>
Hi Jonathan,
> Here's a complete patch that combines the various incremental patches
> that have been going around. I'm testing this now.
>
> Please take a look.
unfortunately, this patch broke macOS bootstrap (seen on
x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.2):
In file included from
Looks good to me.
Tom.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 4:56 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Here's a complete patch that combines the various incremental patches
> that have been going around. I'm testing this now.
>
> Please take a look.
>
Here's a complete patch that combines the various incremental patches
that have been going around. I'm testing this now.
Please take a look.
commit 4a0a8ec5bc2a890a1568f99eace666e9f72d
Author: Thomas Rodgers
Date: Thu Aug 25 11:11:40 2022
libstdc++: Clear padding bits in atomic
Follow-up patch ping (updated)
The first listed patches are smaller + should be quicker to be reviewable,
but in terms of priority, it would be good to make some progress on the
larger patches below as well. Especially as the first patches are only
mine ...
Smaller patches
(i) preparing
1 - 100 of 950 matches
Mail list logo
