Re: Patch ping (was Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Clear padding bits in atomic compare_exchange)

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

Re: OpenMP patch ping

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

Re: Patch ping (was Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Clear padding bits in atomic compare_exchange)

Sorry for the delay in getting to this. I am currently working on moving the bulk of the atomic wait implementation into the .so. I'd like to get that work to a stable state before revisiting this patch, but obviously if we want this to make it into GCC13, it needs to happen sooner rather than

Patch ping ([PATCH] libstdc++: Outline the overlapping case of string _M_replace into a separate function [PR105329])

Hi! 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 workaround for bogus warnings > > when the compiler isn't able to fold _M_disjunct call into

Patch ping (was Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Clear padding bits in atomic compare_exchange)

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 09:48:19PM +, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 01:26, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > > This should address Jonathan's feedback and adds support for atomic_ref > > > > > >This change implements P0528 which requires that padding bits not >

Re: Patch ping (Re: [PATCH] Implement __builtin_issignaling)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2022, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:41:06AM +, Richard Biener wrote: > > I'm OK with the rest of the patch if Joseph doesn't have comments > > on the actual issignaling lowerings (which I didn't review for > > correctness due to lack of

Patch ping (Re: [PATCH] Implement __builtin_issignaling)

On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:41:06AM +, Richard Biener wrote: > I'm OK with the rest of the patch if Joseph doesn't have comments > on the actual issignaling lowerings (which I didn't review for > correctness due to lack of knowledge). I'd like to ping this patch. Patch:

OpenMP patch ping

I would like to ping the following OpenMP patches. First two non-pings but just RFC: - "Restore 'GOMP_offload_unregister_ver' functionality" https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-July/597918.html * QUESTION: See 'assert' question in email exchange (linked email message + emails

Re: Graphite Patch Ping

On Mon, 16 May 2022, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to ping the following patches from Frederik's > "[PATCH 00/40] OpenACC "kernels" Improvements" series > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586901.html > patch set thread link: >

Graphite Patch Ping

Hi all, I would like to ping the following patches from Frederik's "[PATCH 00/40] OpenACC "kernels" Improvements" series https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586901.html patch set thread link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/thread.html#586901 (A)

Re: Patch ping Re: [PATCH] i386: Fix up ix86_gimplify_va_arg [PR105331]

On 4/28/2022 4:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? 2022-04-22 Jakub Jelinek PR target/105331 *

Re: Patch ping Re: [PATCH] i386: Fix up ix86_gimplify_va_arg [PR105331]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? > > > > > > > > 2022-04-22 Jakub Jelinek > > > > > > > > PR target/105331 > > > > *

Re: Patch ping Re: [PATCH] i386: Fix up ix86_gimplify_va_arg [PR105331]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:39:39AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk? > > > > > > 2022-04-22 Jakub Jelinek > > > > > > PR target/105331 > > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_gimplify_va_arg): Mark va_arg_tmp > > >

Re: Patch ping Re: [PATCH] i386: Fix up ix86_gimplify_va_arg [PR105331]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:31 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > I'd like to ping this patch. I know it isn't a full week yet, but we are > almost out of P1s and GCC 12 branching is any time now. > > Thanks: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 09:25:04AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On

Patch ping Re: [PATCH] i386: Fix up ix86_gimplify_va_arg [PR105331]

Hi! I'd like to ping this patch. I know it isn't a full week yet, but we are almost out of P1s and GCC 12 branching is any time now. Thanks: On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 09:25:04AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > On the following testcase we emit a bogus > 'va_arg_tmp.5' may be used

Re: rs6000 patch ping: [PATCH 8/8] rs6000: Fix some missing built-in attributes [PR104004]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 06:07:26PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 02:18:00PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:26AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > > > PR104004 caught some misses on my part in converting to the new built-in

Re: rs6000 patch ping: [PATCH 8/8] rs6000: Fix some missing built-in attributes [PR104004]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 02:18:00PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:26AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote: > > PR104004 caught some misses on my part in converting to the new built-in > > function infrastructure. In particular, I forgot to mark all of the > >

rs6000 patch ping^2: [PATCH 8/8] rs6000: Fix some missing built-in attributes [PR104004]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 02:18:00PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:26AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote: > > PR104004 caught some misses on my part in converting to the new built-in > > function infrastructure. In particular, I forgot to mark

Re: [PATCH PING] ipa: Careful processing ANCESTOR jump functions and NULL pointers (PR 103083)

Hello, I would like to ping this patch, please. Thanks, Martin On Mon, Feb 14 2022, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hello Honza, > > On Mon, Dec 13 2021, Jan Hubicka wrote: >>> >>> + || (only_for_nonzero && >>> >>> !src_lats->bits_lattice.known_nonzero_p ())) >>> >>> + { >>> >>> +

Re: [PATCH PING] ipa-cp: Do not create clones for values outside known value range (PR 102513)

Hello, I would like to ping this patch, please. Thanks, Martin On Mon, Feb 14 2022, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > PR 102513 shows we emit bogus array access warnings when IPA-CP > creates clones specialized for values which it deduces from arithmetic > jump functions describing

Re: Patch ping (Re: [PATCH] libatomic: Improve 16-byte atomics on Intel AVX [PR104688])

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 6:50 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > I'd like to ping this patch: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590960.html > > Thanks. > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 07:06:30AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > As mentioned in the PR, the latest Intel SDM has

Patch ping (Re: [PATCH] libatomic: Improve 16-byte atomics on Intel AVX [PR104688])

Hi! I'd like to ping this patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590960.html Thanks. On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 07:06:30AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > As mentioned in the PR, the latest Intel SDM has added: > "Processors that enumerate support for Intel® AVX (by setting

rs6000 patch ping: [PATCH 8/8] rs6000: Fix some missing built-in attributes [PR104004]

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:50:26AM -0600, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote: > PR104004 caught some misses on my part in converting to the new built-in > function infrastructure. In particular, I forgot to mark all of the "nosoft" > built-ins, and one of those should also have been marked

Re: Patch ping

On 3/2/2022 2:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590526.html PR104558 - when bypassing emit_push_insn for 0 sized arg, emit at least anti_adjust_stack for alignment pad if needed patch. So the issue is the stack

Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590526.html PR104558 - when bypassing emit_push_insn for 0 sized arg, emit at least anti_adjust_stack for alignment pad if needed patch. Thanks Jakub

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590276.html PR102586 - reject __builtin_clear_padding on non-trivially-copyable types with one exception https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590641.html PR104568 - fix up constexpr evaluation

Re: ARM patch ping

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi! > > I'd like to ping the following patch. OK (note the patch is obvious IMHO) Richard. > Thanks. > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:07:26AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:27:20AM

ARM patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the following patch. Thanks. On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:07:26AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:27:20AM +, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * config/arm/arm.opt

Patch ping (Re: [PATCH] c++: Reject in constant evaluation address comparisons of start of one var and end of another [PR89074])

Hi! I'd like to ping this patch: > 2022-01-06 Jakub Jelinek > > PR c++/89074 > * fold-const.c (address_compare): Punt on comparison of address of > one object with address of end of another object if > folding_initializer. > > *

Patch Ping : [Patch][V2]Enable -Wuninitialized + -ftrivial-auto-var-init for address taken variables

Hi, I’d like to ping the patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/587014.html Please take a look and let me know whether it’s okay for committing? Thanks. Qing > On Dec 16, 2021, at 9:59 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > Hi, > > This is the 2nd version of

Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2021-December/053680.html time_get patch. Thanks Jakub

Re: Patch ping

> Hi! > > I'd like to ping the > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586553.html > symtab: Fold == to 0 if folding_initializer [PR94716] > > patch. Thanks. OK. Note that with LTO partitioning it may happen that alias is defined in one partition but used in another. We

Re: Patch ping

On Mon, 3 Jan 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to ping the > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586553.html > symtab: Fold == to 0 if folding_initializer [PR94716] OK. Thanks, Richard.

Re: Patch ping

On Mon, 3 Jan 2022, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to ping the middle-end part of the > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586879.html > patch (which Uros approved the backend part for with a minor change > I have in my tree). OK for the middle-end parts if you

Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the middle-end part of the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586879.html patch (which Uros approved the backend part for with a minor change I have in my tree). Thanks. Jakub

Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586553.html symtab: Fold == to 0 if folding_initializer [PR94716] patch. Thanks. Jakub

Re: Patch ping related to OpenMP

Thanks for a DWARF-related patch review (+ fix by yourself). Otherwise, still pending are the following OpenMP patches. The first one is a revised patch following the review comment and affects Fortran only. The second one is also a rather small & post-review revised patch. On 06.12.21 15:56,

Re: Patch ping related to OpenMP

First, thanks for the four reviews. Secondly, I missed one patch – hence, reposted with all three pending patches: * Re: [PATCH] [gfortran] Add support for allocate clause (OpenMP 5.0). https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/584894.html and: On 01.12.21 17:34, Tobias Burnus

[PATCH, PING] rs6000: Builtins test changes for test_fpscr_[d]rn_builtin_error.c

Hi!  I'd like to ping this patch. Thanks! Bill On 11/18/21 10:36 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi! This is the last patch broken out of the previous test suite patch > for the new builtins support. > > One advantage of the new builtins support is uniform error messages for > arguments with

[PATCH, PING] rs6000: Builtins test changes for pragma_misc9.c

Hi!  I'd like to ping this patch. Thanks! Bill On 11/18/21 10:18 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi! This patch is broken out from the test suite patch for the new > builtins support. This one is just a minor adjustment for the error > message wording. > > Tested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu and

[PATCH, PING] rs6000: Builtins test changes for pr80315-*.c, pr88100.c

Hi!  I'd like to ping this patch. Thanks! Bill On 11/18/21 10:15 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi! This patch is broken out from the test case patch for the new > builtins support. > > One advantage of the new builtins support is uniform error messages for > arguments with restricted values.

Patch ping related to OpenMP

Patch ping - lightly sorted by priority, simplicity and dependency: * [PATCH, v5, OpenMP 5.0] Improve OpenMP target support for C++ [PR92120 v5] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/584602.html * [PATCH, v2, OpenMP 5.0] Remove array section base-pointer mapping semantics

[PATCH, PING] rs6000: Builtins test changes for compare-bytes tests

Hi!  I'd like to ping this patch. Thanks! Bill On 11/18/21 7:47 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi! This patch is broken out from the patch with test suite changes for the > new builtins support. > > With the old builtins support, cmpb-2.c produces: > warning: implicit declaration of function

[PATCH, PING] rs6000: Builtins test changes for BFP scalar tests

Hi! I'd like to ping this patch. Segher had objected to the change in diagnostics, but I hope we've solved that now with the better informational message [1]. Thanks! Bill [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/585250.html On 11/17/21 2:58 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Hi!

Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping following patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/583289.html c++, dyninit: Optimize C++ dynamic initialization by constants into DECL_INITIAL adjustment [PR102876] While Jason has added -fimplicit-constexpr which can fix up some cases, it

i386 patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/585125.html "x86: Speed up target attribute handling by using a cache" patch. IMHO the .2s speedup on #include is worth it. Thanks Jakub

Re: Patch ping (Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Issue -Wpsabi warning about C++ zero width bitfield ABI changes [PR102024])

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 3:24 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:05:58AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > This is an incremental patch to > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/578447.html > > for x86_64 ABI. > > For zero-width

Patch ping (Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Issue -Wpsabi warning about C++ zero width bitfield ABI changes [PR102024])

Hi! On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:05:58AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > This is an incremental patch to > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/578447.html > for x86_64 ABI. > For zero-width bitfields current GCC classify_argument does: > if

Re: C++ patch ping

On 9/1/21 4:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:25:17PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: On 8/30/21 3:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the following patches libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488]

Re: C++ patch ping

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:25:17PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 8/30/21 3:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'd like to ping the following patches > > > > libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488] > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html >

Re: C++ patch ping

On 8/30/21 3:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the following patches libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html together with your https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/577602.html

C++ patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the following patches libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html together with your https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/577602.html incremental patch (successfully tested on

C++ Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 3 patches: c++: Add C++20 #__VA_OPT__ support https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575355.html libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html libcpp, v2: Implement C++23 P1949R7 - C++

C++ Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping 3 patches: c++: Add C++20 #__VA_OPT__ support https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575355.html libcpp: __VA_OPT__ p1042r1 placemarker changes [PR101488] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/575621.html c++: Accept C++11 attribute-definition

Re: Patch ping (was Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix up easy_vector_constant_msb handling [PR101384])

Hi! On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 02:43:03PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > For gcc 11, I've bootstrapped/regtested on powerpc64le-linux and > powerpc64-linux (the latter regtested -m32/-m64) also a simpler version > below, which restricts it to the case that the code handles properly. > > 2021-07-20

Patch ping (was Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix up easy_vector_constant_msb handling [PR101384])

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 09:30:43PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > The following gcc.dg/pr101384.c testcase is miscompiled on > powerpc64le-linux. > easy_altivec_constant has code to try construct vector constants with > different element sizes, perhaps different from CONST_VECTOR's

Re: contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

> Is just using std::terminate as the handler viable? Or if we're sure > contracts in some form will go into the IS eventually, and the > signature won't change, we could just add it in __cxxabiv1:: as you > suggested earlier. No, the handler needs to be configurable (at least quietly) in order

Re: contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 04:56, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 7/12/21 3:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 20:07, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> > >> On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: > >>> > >>> I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email > >>>

Re: contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

On 7/12/21 3:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 20:07, Jason Merrill wrote: On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email address). I scraped all the contracts changes into one big patch against master. See

Re: contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 20:07, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: > > > > I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email > > address). I scraped all the contracts changes into one big patch > > against master. See attached. The

Re: contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

On 7/5/21 3:07 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email address). I scraped all the contracts changes into one big patch against master. See attached. The ChangeLog.contracts files list the sum of

contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email address). I scraped all the contracts changes into one big patch against master. See attached. The ChangeLog.contracts files list the sum of changes for the patch, not the full

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

I think so, yes. On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 11:09 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 7/1/21 12:27 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote: > >>> I think this version addresses most of your concerns. > >> > >> Thanks, looking good. I'll fuss with it a bit and commit it soon. > > Do you agree that this testcase should

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

On 7/1/21 12:27 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote: I think this version addresses most of your concerns. Thanks, looking good. I'll fuss with it a bit and commit it soon. Do you agree that this testcase should compile? >From 85400e1896a188892b1ebeb0c8e86ff3cd28cfa6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From:

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

> > I think this version addresses most of your concerns. > > Thanks, looking good. I'll fuss with it a bit and commit it soon. Awesome! Andrew

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: Hi Jason, I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email address). I scraped all the contracts changes into one big patch against master. See attached. The ChangeLog.contracts files list the sum of changes for the patch, not the

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

Hello again :) Wanted to shoot a quick status update. Some github issues have been created for points of feedback, and we've been working on addressing them. A few changes have been pushed to the contracts-jac-alt branch, while there's also an active more in depth rewrite branch. Some specific

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

On 5/14/21 4:54 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 4/30/21 1:44 PM, Jeff Chapman wrote: Hello! Looping back around to this. re: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567334.html On 3/25/21, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/1/21 8:12 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: On 1/18/21, Jason Merrill wrote:

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 04:54:10PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote: > Please add an overview of the implementation strategy to the top of > cxx-contracts.c. Particularly to discuss the why and how of > pre/post/guarded/unguarded functions. And I think let's please name the file

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

On 4/30/21 1:44 PM, Jeff Chapman wrote: Hello! Looping back around to this. re: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567334.html On 3/25/21, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/1/21 8:12 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: On 1/18/21, Jason Merrill wrote: On 1/4/21 9:58 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote:

Re: Patch ping (Re: [PATCH] ix86: Support V{2, 4}DImode arithmetic right shifts for SSE2+ [PR98856])

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 3:06 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 03:46:59PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:12:24PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > > > As mentioned in the PR, we don't support arithmetic right V2DImode

Patch ping (Re: [PATCH] ix86: Support V{2, 4}DImode arithmetic right shifts for SSE2+ [PR98856])

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 03:46:59PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:12:24PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > As mentioned in the PR, we don't support arithmetic right V2DImode or > > V4DImode on x86 without -mavx512vl or -mxop. The ISAs

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

Hello! Looping back around to this. re: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567334.html On 3/25/21, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 3/1/21 8:12 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: >> On 1/18/21, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> On 1/4/21 9:58 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: Ping. re:

Re: Aarch64 patch ping^3

t; > so I think he should have the final say. He's currently on holiday >> > > but will be back next week. >> > >> > I'd like to ping this patch. >> >> Ping. > > Ping. Let's go for it. I still think the patch looks good, and if a problem crop

P1 patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping this patch, it is one of the last 4 P1s we have for GCC11. Thanks. On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:15:42PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > PR c/99420 - bogus -Warray-parameter on a function redeclaration in function > scope > PR c/99972 - missing -Wunused-result on

Aarch64 patch ping^3

currently on holiday > > > but will be back next week. > > > > I'd like to ping this patch. > > Ping. Ping. > > > > 2021-03-18 Jakub Jelinek > > > > > > > > PR target/91710 > > > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.

Re: Patch ping for PR95176 fix

On 4/12/2021 11:45 AM, Victor Tong via Gcc-patches wrote: Hello, I'd like to ping this patch. It contains two new tree-opt patterns in match.pd. [PATCH] tree-optimization: Optimize division followed by multiply [PR95176]

Patch ping for PR95176 fix

Hello, I'd like to ping this patch. It contains two new tree-opt patterns in match.pd. [PATCH] tree-optimization: Optimize division followed by multiply [PR95176] (gnu.org) Thanks, Victor

Aarch64 patch ping^2

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:16:55AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Looks good to me. Richard E knows this code better than I do though, > > so I think he should have the final say. He's currently on holiday > > but will be back next week. > > I'd like to ping this patc

Re: Patch ping

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to ping the PR98860 P1 fix - workaround for PECOFF linkers without > DWARF5 support - to make -gdwarf-4 the default in such configurations. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567245.html OK. Richard. > Thanks

Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the PR98860 P1 fix - workaround for PECOFF linkers without DWARF5 support - to make -gdwarf-4 the default in such configurations. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567245.html Thanks Jakub

Patch ping^2

Hi! I'd like to ping following patch: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/59.html > PR99490 dwarf2out -gsplit-dwarf ranges fixes Thanks Jakub

Patch ping - Re: [PATCH] aarch64: Don't emit -Wpsabi note when ABI was never affected [PR91710]

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 01:04:19PM +, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote: > > As the following testcase shows, we emit a -Wpsabi note about argument > > passing change since GCC 9, but in reality the ABI didn't change. > > The alignment is 8 bits in GCC < 9 and 32 bits in GCC >= 9 and >

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

On 3/1/21 8:12 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: On 1/18/21, Jason Merrill wrote: On 1/4/21 9:58 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: Ping. re: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561135.html

Re: Patch ping

On Wed, 24 Mar 2021, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 3/24/21 10:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:45:31AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > >> E.g., OEP_IGNORE_MEMBER_OFFSET or OEP_SAME_MEMBER_OFFSET (for > >> the converse of the first) or something like that, but

Re: Patch ping

On 3/24/21 10:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:45:31AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: E.g., OEP_IGNORE_MEMBER_OFFSET or OEP_SAME_MEMBER_OFFSET (for the converse of the first) or something like that, but hopefully you get the idea. Neither of these look like a

Re: Patch ping

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:45:31AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > E.g., OEP_IGNORE_MEMBER_OFFSET or OEP_SAME_MEMBER_OFFSET (for > the converse of the first) or something like that, but hopefully > you get the idea. Neither of these look like a good name to me,

Re: Patch ping

On 3/24/2021 5:44 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566821.html P1 PR99565 fix. Marek has acked the gcc/c/ and gcc/c-family/ part of that patch, but it still has gcc/cp/ and gcc/ parts that weren't acked. If

Re: Patch ping

On 3/24/21 5:44 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566821.html P1 PR99565 fix. Marek has acked the gcc/c/ and gcc/c-family/ part of that patch, but it still has gcc/cp/ and gcc/ parts that weren't acked. If you

Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566821.html P1 PR99565 fix. Marek has acked the gcc/c/ and gcc/c-family/ part of that patch, but it still has gcc/cp/ and gcc/ parts that weren't acked. If you have suggestions for better OEP_* flag name, I can change

Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping two patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566324.html PR99388 dwarf2out half float fix https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/59.html PR99490 dwarf2out -gsplit-dwarf ranges fixes Thanks Jakub

Re: [PATCH PING^3] Add input_modes parameter to TARGET_MD_ASM_ADJUST hook

On 3/3/21 1:42 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 21:26 +0100, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches > wrote: >> On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 13:02 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> On 3/2/21 4:50 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches wrote: Hello, I would like to ping the

Re: [PATCH PING^3] Add input_modes parameter to TARGET_MD_ASM_ADJUST hook

On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 21:26 +0100, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 13:02 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > On 3/2/21 4:50 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I would like to ping the following patch: > > > > > > Add input_modes

Re: [PATCH PING^3] Add input_modes parameter to TARGET_MD_ASM_ADJUST hook

On Wed, 2021-03-03 at 13:02 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 3/2/21 4:50 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I would like to ping the following patch: > > > > Add input_modes parameter to TARGET_MD_ASM_ADJUST hook > >

Re: [PATCH PING^3] Add input_modes parameter to TARGET_MD_ASM_ADJUST hook

On 3/2/21 4:50 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to ping the following patch: > > Add input_modes parameter to TARGET_MD_ASM_ADJUST hook > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/562898.html > > It is needed for the following regression fix: >

[PATCH PING^3] Add input_modes parameter to TARGET_MD_ASM_ADJUST hook

Hello, I would like to ping the following patch: Add input_modes parameter to TARGET_MD_ASM_ADJUST hook https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/562898.html It is needed for the following regression fix: IBM Z: Fix usage of "f" constraint with long doubles

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

On 1/18/21, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 1/4/21 9:58 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: >> Ping. re: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561135.html >> >> >> https://github.com/lock3/gcc/tree/contracts-jac-alt >>

Patch ping^2

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:49:08AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > I'd like to ping the > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/565350.html > patch, P2 PR99085 ice-on-valid-code fix in fixup_partitions. Ping Thanks Jakub

Patch ping

Hi! I'd like to ping the https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/565350.html patch, P2 PR99085 ice-on-valid-code fix in fixup_partitions. Thanks Jakub

RE: ARM patch ping

Hi Jakub, > -Original Message- > From: Jakub Jelinek > Sent: 19 February 2021 10:45 > To: Richard Sandiford ; Richard Earnshaw > ; Ramana Radhakrishnan > ; Kyrylo Tkachov > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: ARM patch ping > > Hi! > > I'd

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >