Hello,
(sorry for multiple copies of this email)
This small fix was inserted to skip DEBUG_INSNs while
recognizing doloop pattern in loop-doloop.c file. It's a fix
for the already approved do-loop patch (not in mainline yet,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01718.html) in
Hello,
(sorry for multiple copies of this email)
This small fix was inserted to skip DEBUG_INSNs while
recognizing doloop pattern in loop-doloop.c file. It's a fix
for the already approved do-loop patch (not in mainline yet,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01718.html) in
Hi,
This small fix was inserted to skip DEBUG_INSNs while
recognizing doloop pattern in loop-doloop.c file. It's a fix
for the already approved do-loop patch (not in mainline yet,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg01718.html) in loop-doloop.c
The patch was tested together with
This patch remove some unused macros from sparc.h. The
RTX_OK_FOR_OFFSET_P and RTX_OK_FOR_OLO10_P macros is used only in
sparc_legitimate_address_p function and moved to sparc.c.
Thanks for spotting this.
OK to install?
* config/sparc/sparc.h (REG_OK_FOR_INDEX_P,
2011-03-24 Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (output_profile_hook): Fix thinko.
Applied as obvious.
--
Eric Botcazou
Have you run the regression test suite for the AVR for this patch?
The compiler doesn't even build without the print_operand_address hunk...
I've installed this hunk as obvious to make some progress.
--
Eric Botcazou
Hello,
Here the problem is that we were recursing even if there was a user
defined constructor. In fact, the check was only done at the top, not
in nested fields.
If there is a user defined constructor, uninitialized const or
reference members are diagnosed elsewhere.
Bootstraped and tested on
On 6 May 2011 13:29, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 09:02 +0300, Ira Rosen wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02172.html
The last version:
ChangeLog:
* doc/invoke.texi (preferred-vector-size): Document.
* params.h
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 19:35, Janne Blomqvist blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
the error printing functionality (in io/unix.c) st_printf and
st_vprintf are not thread-safe as they use a static buffer. However,
since these routines are used when something has gone wrong, we
shouldn't use
On Sun, 8 May 2011, Ira Rosen wrote:
How about ARM specific flag similar to -mprefer-avx128 (not tested)?
If this goes in, please also update gcc-4.7/changes.html.
Thanks,
Gerald
On 8 May 2011 15:02, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2011, Ira Rosen wrote:
How about ARM specific flag similar to -mprefer-avx128 (not tested)?
If this goes in, please also update gcc-4.7/changes.html.
Do you mean that the new flag should be documented?
This patch
This has been redundant for 8+ years, and in the course of simplifying
things globally I noticed and yanked this now.
Gerald
Index: projects/tree-ssa/tree-browser.html
===
RCS file:
On Fri, 6 May 2011, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I would propose to clarify as:
To ensure that GCC finds the GNU assembler (or the GNU linker),
I see no harm in that change, Gerald, what do you think?
Agreed. Things would have been different twenty years ago, but these
days using linker is a lot
Agreed. Things would have been different twenty years ago, but these
days using linker is a lot more natural and common (as a grep in gcc/doc
confirms, too).
Even 20 years ago, I think linker would have been the more natural
word. I remember linker from my IBM days in the early 80's.
On May 8 2011, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
the error printing functionality (in io/unix.c) st_printf and
st_vprintf are not thread-safe as they use a static buffer. ...
While this patch makes error printing thread-safe, it's no longer
async-signal-safe as the stderr lock might lead to a deadlock.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:33 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:32:37PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
As I said in my GCC Summit talk, currently we just give up on
any floating
Hi,
committed to mainline.
Paolo.
//
2011-05-08 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
PR c++/48816
* cxx-pretty-print.c (pp_cxx_template_declaration): Remove
effectively unused variable.
Index: cxx-pretty-print.c
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
Hi,
this more or less complettes the infrastructure for predicates by adding
logic propagating predicates across CFG. I also added switch statement
handling and __builtin_constant_p construct, so we understand functions
using
Sorry - I should have clarified that ANYTHING that can't be used
independently in multiple threads and at multiple levels in the same thread
counts as a resource, and that includes stderr.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Hi,
as far as I can see this is just another case where we want to pass down
more consistently the complain argument in order to avoid hard errors in
sfinae contexts. In particular, we don't want hard errors from
reshape_init itself (in order to fix 48737) and we want digest_init_r to
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 14:40, Janne Blomqvist blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 19:35, Janne Blomqvist blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
the error printing functionality (in io/unix.c) st_printf and
st_vprintf are not thread-safe as they use a static buffer.
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 16:42, N.M. Maclaren n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
On May 8 2011, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
the error printing functionality (in io/unix.c) st_printf and
st_vprintf are not thread-safe as they use a static buffer. ...
While this patch makes error printing thread-safe, it's no
Hello!
Attached patch fixes changed register allocation where enabled
attribute is used. The core of the problem was with IRA, where IRA
does not look at enabled attribute when scanning through
alternatives string to perform various tasks (including register
allocation preferences).
Attached
On May 8 2011, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
It's theoretically insoluble, given the constraints you are working
under. Sorry. It is possible to do reasonably well, but there will
always be likely scenarios where all you can do is to say Aargh!
I give up.
Well, I realize perfection is impossible,
On Sun, 8 May 2011, Ira Rosen wrote:
If this goes in, please also update gcc-4.7/changes.html.
Do you mean that the new flag should be documented?
Yes, as we're adding new flags, it's (nearly?) always a good idea to
document them as part of the release notes.
This patch
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Steven Bosscher wrote:
2011-04-26 Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com
* projects.html: Use regular h2 markup for section headers
instead of fake tables.
The Compiler improvements section is 10 years behind on GCC's
development (tree-ssa!). The recently
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Andre Majorel wrote:
Yesterday, I spent an hour looking for the C99 and C++0x status
pages in http://gcc.gnu.org/,
http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
Apparently, the shortest path to the latter is
Releases
- GCC
Hi,
The x86 Android toolchain needs setting LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET to
build. This patch does that. The patch was tested by bootstrapping
natively on x86_64 linux. Do I also need to submit this to binutils
as well?
-Doug
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Doug Kwan (關振德) dougk...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
The x86 Android toolchain needs setting LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET to
build. This patch does that. The patch was tested by bootstrapping
natively on x86_64 linux. Do I also need to submit this to binutils
as well?
Sorry, forgot the patch and the ChangeLog
2011-05-08 Doug Kwan dougk...@google.com
* configure.ac: Propagate LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET.
* configure: Regenerated.
* Makefile.tpl (LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET): Use LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET
value from configure.
* Makefile.in:
On 05/08/2011 12:51 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
@@ -5203,7 +5203,7 @@ reshape_init_r (tree type, reshape_iter *d, bool f
{
++d-cur;
gcc_assert (BRACE_ENCLOSED_INITIALIZER_P (init));
- return reshape_init (type, init);
+ return
Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote on 09/05/2011 01:53:35 AM:
On Sun, 8 May 2011, Ira Rosen wrote:
If this goes in, please also update gcc-4.7/changes.html.
Do you mean that the new flag should be documented?
Yes, as we're adding new flags, it's (nearly?) always a good idea to
32 matches
Mail list logo
